Opinion ID: 2460175
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Washington's Statutory Scheme for Termination of Parental Rights

Text: ¶ 11 Before the early 1800s, homeless or neglected children were incarcerated in adult prisons because of the absence of any alternatives. Mary Kay Becker, [3] Washington State's New Juvenile Code: An Introduction, 14 GONZ. L.REV. 289, 289 (1978-1979). The social reform movement of the 19th century responded by establishing refuge houses and reform schools for children without adequate parental custodians. Id. Operating under the doctrine of parens patriae,[ [4] ] the courts could and did sever parental ties, and routinely committed children found to be in unsound environments to reform schools...all without legal process and safeguards. Id. at 290 (footnote omitted). In 1905 and 1909, the Washington Legislature created a separate juvenile court and added neglected children to the court's jurisdiction. Id. In 1913, chapter 13.04 RCW became effective, establishing a wide range of powers, duties, and procedural guidelines and giving courts the authority to intervene in cases where a child was found to be dependent. Becker, supra, at 290. It remained substantially unchanged until the enactment of House bill 371 in 1977. Id. ¶ 12 The policy rationale behind House Bill 371 first emerged in a 1976 House Senate concurrent resolution. Becker, supra, at 298. The joint resolution stated that [m]aintaining the family unit should be the first consideration in all cases of state intervention into childrens' lives. Comm. on Soc. and Health Servs., Substitute H. Concurrent Res. 46, at 1, 44th Leg., 2d Ex.Sess. (Wash. Feb. 6, 1976). It also emphasized keeping the family unit together. Id. at 5. These policy statements were adopted into House Bill 371, the legislation that established our current termination statute. Becker, supra, at 304-05. ¶ 13 Termination of parental rights in Washington State is a three-step process. [5] First, the State may take a child into shelter care and hold a hearing to determine if the child is dependent within the meaning of RCW 13.34.030(6). If the child is found to be dependent, the court may return the child to the home under specific conditions or place the child in the care of a suitable person. ¶ 14 Second, the State must hold a review hearing every six months to review the progress of the parties and determine whether court supervision should continue. RCW 13.34.138(1). The goal during this phase is to order remedial measures to preserve and mend family ties, and to alleviate the problems which prompted the State's initial intervention. In re Dependency of A.W., 53 Wash.App. 22, 27, 765 P.2d 307 (1988). If the efforts prove unsuccessful, the State may proceed to the third step, termination of the parent-child relationship. ¶ 15 In order to terminate the parent-child relationship, the third step requires the State to satisfy two prongs. The first prong focuses on the adequacy of the parents and requires proof of the six elements set out in RCW 13.34.180(1). [6] Each of the six statutory elements must be proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence before the State may terminate parental rights. In re Welfare of C.S., 168 Wash.2d 51, 55, 225 P.3d 953 (2010); RCW 13.34.180(1). This court has held satisfaction of the six statutory elements of subsection .180(1) is an implicit finding of unfitness, satisfying the due process requirement that a court must find parents currently unfit before terminating the parent-child relationship. In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wash.2d 129, 141-42, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995). ¶ 16 If the State satisfies the first prong by proving the six statutory factors, the court proceeds to the second prong, determining if termination is in the best interest of the child. RCW 13.34.190(1)(b). Only if the first prong is satisfied may the court reach the second. In re Interest of S.G., 140 Wash.App. 461, 470, 166 P.3d 802 (2007); In re Welfare of C.B., 134 Wash.App. 942, 952, 143 P.3d 846 (2006). ¶ 17 The paramount goal of child welfare legislation is to reunite the child with his or her legal parents, if reasonably possible. In re Dependency of J.H., 117 Wash.2d 460, 476, 815 P.2d 1380 (1991); In re Custody of C.C.M., 149 Wash.App. 184, 202 P.3d 971 (2009). This court has long recognized that a court may not concern itself with a child's welfare without first determining the child is dependent. In re Frank, 41 Wash.2d 294, 297, 248 P.2d 553 (1952). A valid order of dependency requires the State to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the child is dependent within the meaning of RCW 13.34.030(6). RCW 13.34.110(1). By definition, a dependent child is one who has been abandoned, abused or neglected, or has no parent, guardian, or custodian capable of providing adequate care. K.N.J., 151 Wash.App. at 311, 211 P.3d 483; RCW 13.34.030(6).