Opinion ID: 6227009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure To Return K.W. to Relative Care

Text: RCW 13.34.130(3) requires the court to consider the child’s existing relationships and attachments and to give preference to placement with relatives who are “willing, appropriate, and available to care for the child” and “with whom the child has a relationship and is comfortable.” In the event that the child cannot be maintained in “his or her home,” the child must be placed with a “relative or other suitable person.” RCW 13.34.130(1)(a), (b)(i). The last resort, as contemplated by the statute, is placement “with a person not related to the child.” RCW 13.34.130(3). Here, K.W. requested to be returned to relative care with either Aunt H. or Grandma B., relatives with whom he had strong relationships and attachments, since they had been involved in raising him since he was an infant. It is important to note here that K.W. had been living with Grandma B. prior to his removal with no issues; the reason for removal appears to have been the failure of Grandma B. to notify the Department that she was taking a one-day trip and had arranged for someone else 30 In re Dependency of K.W. No. 99301-7 K.W. knew to watch him until her return. K.W., the prospective relative caregivers, and numerous other members of the family attested to the bonds between K.W. and these relatives and to the safe environments they could provide him. Aunt H. and Grandma B. endeavored to answer every single one of the Department’s concerns and made significant efforts to complete home studies and otherwise demonstrate that they were willing, appropriate, and available to care for K.W. It is difficult to imagine what more Aunt H. or Grandma B. could have done to demonstrate the strength of their familial bonds and their commitment to providing safe care for K.W. in their homes. Aunt H. had previously been very involved in K.W.’s life and had expressed a desire to be a permanent placement for him. Nevertheless, the Department refused to even consider placing K.W. with her before completing a home study—despite a court order expressly authorizing placement with her. Instead, when the Department met with Aunt H., the social worker raised concerns about her prior involvement with the Department; Aunt H. responded to each concern by explaining that each incident had either been unfounded, caused her to make changes to make the home safer, or alerted her to a risk she would take steps to protect K.W. from. The Department did not explain why she remained an unsuitable relative placement for K.W., other than its apparent prediction that she was unlikely to pass a home study. Prior involvement with child welfare agencies, without more, can serve as a proxy 31 In re Dependency of K.W. No. 99301-7 for race or class, given that families of Color are disproportionately impacted by the child welfare system. 11 See WASHINGTON CHILD WELFARE RACIAL DISPARITY, supra. The Department’s reliance on Aunt H.’s prior interactions with the child welfare system as a reason to deny her placement after she addressed each specific concern was arbitrary and improper. Cf. J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d at 12 (criminal history 11 For example, under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)—the “gold standard” in child welfare policy—children in foster care or preadoptive placement “shall be placed in the least restrictive setting which most approximates a family” with highest preference to a member of the child’s extended family, absent “good cause to the contrary.” 25 U.S.C. § 1915(b); BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEP’T OF INTERIOR, GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT 39 (2016). A party seeking to deviate from this placement preference must state their reasons on the record and bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that there is good cause to depart from the placement preference. 25 C.F.R. § 23.132(a), (b). One reason a court may conclude that there is good cause to depart from the placement preference is the unavailability of a suitable placement, but “the standards for determining whether a placement is unavailable must conform to the prevailing social and cultural standards of the Indian community in which the Indian child’s parent or extended family resides or with which the Indian child’s parent or extended family members maintain social and cultural ties,” and socioeconomic status may not be a basis to depart from the placement preference. 25 C.F.R. § 23.132(c)(5), (d). Notably, prior contact with the child welfare system, criminal history, and poverty are not good cause reasons to depart from the strong preference for placement with relatives under ICWA. Likewise, tribes located around Washington State prioritize placement with extended family or other members of the tribal community and rarely treat factors like prior child welfare proceedings or criminal history as disqualifying in determining out-of-home placements for children. See, e.g., NISQUALLY TRIBAL CODE § 50.09.09; NOOKSACK LAWS & ORDINANCES § 15.09.100; JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE TRIBAL CODE § 33.01.09(J); PUYALLUP TRIBAL CODE § 7.04.840. But see TULALIP TRIBAL CODE § 4.05.110(4) (prohibiting placement with someone with a criminal conviction, but only for certain crimes identified as disqualifying crimes by the social services division charged by the Tulalip Tribe with the responsibility to protect the health and welfare of Tulalip families and their children (beda?chelh)). 32 In re Dependency of K.W. No. 99301-7 cannot be a dispositive factor in placement decisions); M.R., 166 Wn. App. at 505 (immigration status cannot be a dispositive factor in placement decisions). Likewise, Grandma B. had been the relative whom K.W.’s mother asked to care for K.W. when he was a year old and who had raised him until the age of six, with the Department’s repeated approval. This is in compliance with the statute, which says, “Absent good cause, the department shall follow the wishes of the natural parent regarding the placement of the child.” RCW 13.34.130(2). Grandma B. helped raise multiple children—both her own natural children and the children of friends and family who needed help—and she had a professional background and training in early childhood development and trauma-informed care. The Department insisted that it removed K.W. from Grandma B.’s care due to safety concerns and that it did not want to return K.W. to Grandma B. without further investigation. However, it is unclear what, if anything, the Department did to investigate those safety concerns—other than receive statements from Grandma B. and Aunt H. addressing each of those concerns. Instead, the Department appeared to conclude that Grandma B. was not a suitable placement because she had been the victim of domestic violence a decade earlier and allowed her estranged husband to maintain a relationship with their daughter. The Department insisted that it would not consider placement with Grandma B. until she had completed a department-authorized home study including her estranged husband, despite her statements that he had not lived 33 In re Dependency of K.W. No. 99301-7 in her home since before she took K.W. into her home and that she was willing to get a divorce. 12 The Department also penalized Grandma B., Aunt H., and Mr. W. for being unable to commit to being permanent placements for K.W. earlier. 13 Additionally, the Department overemphasized the importance of future permanence, failing to consider the significant stability K.W.’s long-term relative caregivers had provided him for almost his entire life and the dramatic instability the Department had introduced into K.W.’s life by removing him from Grandma B.’s care. The Department apparently opposed placement with relatives because it could not be certain they would ultimately become permanent placements for K.W. However, these rationales of “permanency” and “stability” crumble under the facts of this case, where the Department abruptly removed K.W. from a relative placement with no prior safety concerns without conducting sufficient inquiry into the plans for his care, subjected him to three different foster homes in a few weeks, prevented him 12 The Department has now conceded that the trial court erred in rejecting Grandma B’s private home study based on unspecified alleged inaccuracies, and it also concedes that it should not have refused to conduct its own home study with Grandma B. while Aunt H.’s was pending. 13 Under Laws of 2021, ch. 211, § 9(5)(c)(iii)(B) and (D), “[u]ncertainty on the part of the relative . . . regarding potential adoption of the child” and “conditions of the relative[’s] . . . home [that] are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a licensed foster home” are impermissible reasons to deny shelter care placement with a relative who had expressed interest in caring for the child and meets other statutory requirements. 34 In re Dependency of K.W. No. 99301-7 from attending an important annual family and cultural event, and then refused to return him to the care of his relatives, despite his and his family’s many requests. We reverse. Statutory preferences to place dependent children with relatives are “suitable measures for the care and welfare of the child” consistent with the statutory scheme and continue to apply after a child becomes legally free. RCW 13.34.210, .130(3), (6). The purpose of these statutes is to ensure children are safe and in placements that are consistent, stable, and in homes with relatives. Disrupting a child’s placement, as happened in this case, for reasons that appear to have virtually no grounds at all, creates chaos for the child. That chaos can be mitigated or alleviated by following the statutory scheme ensuring children should be placed with relatives. Courts must afford meaningful preference to placement with relatives. RCW 13.34.130(3). In this case, the juvenile court applied the wrong standard, which is an abuse of discretion. M.R., 166 Wn. App. at 517. The court failed to consider whether the relatives K.W. requested to be placed with were “willing, appropriate, and available to care for the child” and “with whom the child has a relationship and is comfortable.” RCW 13.34.130(3); see A.C., 74 Wn. App. at 279 (a dependency court abuses its discretion when it makes a placement decision without considering the appropriate factors). Further, the court overlooked the Department’s role in causing instability to K.W.’s placement and giving inappropriate weight to factors 35 In re Dependency of K.W. No. 99301-7 that serve as proxies for race. It was an abuse of discretion to deny K.W.’s request to return to placement with a long-term relative caregiver after the Department abruptly removed him and the relatives made remarkable efforts to assuage the Department’s concerns. 14 The court also erred in concluding that “stability” refers only to future permanence as a stabilizing factor for a dependent child, particularly when the child has existing relationships with the relatives. RCW 13.34.130(3) (preference for placement with a relative “with whom the child has a relationship and is comfortable”); cf. J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d at 11. Here, the Department and the court relied on impermissible factors and failed to give meaningful preference to the relative placements K.W. requested.