Opinion ID: 1345660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the trial court properly terminated psaty's parental rights

Text: Psaty argues that the trial court applied the wrong substantive standard in reaching its decision, and that the court's order terminating his parental rights is not supported by sufficient evidence. According to Psaty, Francis did not establish by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that he exhibited a substantial lack of regard for his parental obligations. We find no merit in his argument. [4] The adoption code requires that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence be presented to sustain an order terminating parental rights,  i.e., the ultimate fact in issue must be shown by evidence to be `highly probable'. In re Pawling, 101 Wn.2d at 399. An appellate court will not disturb the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence which satisfies the highly probable test. In re Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739, 513 P.2d 831 (1973); In re Pawling, 101 Wn.2d at 399. The trial court explicitly found that the evidence established that Psaty disregarded his parental obligations. In its finding of fact 38, the court determined 38 ... Furthermore, the evidence establishes that Mr. Psaty has failed to perform his parental duties, that he has had the ability to pay support but failed to do so, that Mr. Psaty has not communicated in a way that effectively, persistently or consistently demonstrated his love and affection for [the child]. Clerk's Papers, at 81. The court concluded 5. The evidence clearly, cogently and convincingly shows that [Mr. Psaty] has failed to perform his parental duties under circumstances showing a substantial lack of regard for his parental obligations and is withholding consent to adoption contrary to the best interest of the child. Clerk's Papers, at 82. Conclusion of law 5.