Opinion ID: 1345660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: termination of parental rights under the adoption code

Text: [3] This court stated that when terminating parental rights under former RCW 26.32.056, the lower court was to consider two questions: (1) jurisdictional  whether the biological parent, by behavior, has forfeited all rights in the child, i.e., whether the child has been deserted or abandoned under RCW 26.32.056; and (2) dispositional  whether terminating parental rights would be in the best interests of the child. In re Pawling, 101 Wn.2d 392, 400, 679 P.2d 916 (1984). The court must resolve the jurisdictional issue before it can address the best interests of the child. In re Adoption of J.D., 42 Wn. App. 345, 350, 711 P.2d 368 (1985). The former statute defined abandonment as `a wilful substantial lack of regard for parental obligations.' In re Pawling, 101 Wn.2d at 397-98. This court established that parental obligations consist of the following attributes: (1) [E]xpress love and affection for the child; (2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child; (3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing, and medical care; (4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile; and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance. In re Adoption of Lybbert, 75 Wn.2d 671, 674, 453 P.2d 650 (1969); In re Pawling, 101 Wn.2d at 398. We hold that in resolving the jurisdictional question here, under RCW 26.33.120(1), the lower court must determine whether the biological parent has failed to perform parental duties under circumstances showing a substantial lack of regard for his or her parental obligations.