Opinion ID: 3161585
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Weighing of competing interests

Text: Under the fourth Ishikawa factor, the parents' interest in protecting some aspects of their trial strategy from premature disclosure must be weighed against the 26 In re the Dependency of M.H.P., No. 90468-5 countervailing interests of the State, the child, and the public. Here, the countervailing interests include the child's interest in speedy resolution of termination proceedings, the public's interest in the open administration of justice, the Department's and the CASI\s interests in expert services that involve the presence of the child, and the State's and the public's interests in the expenditure of public funds. The court's weighing of these countervailing interests should be articulated in its findings and conclusions, which should be as specific as possible rather than conclusory. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d at 38. In this case, the trial court failed to adequately consider the countervailing interests when determining the necessity of sealing. 15 Those interests once again suggest that the documents in question should have been partially redacted rather than completely sealed. The child has a strong interest in the speedy resolution of dependency and termination proceedings. RCW 13.34.020. As noted in the above discussion of due process, that interest is undermined when courts hear and decide motions on an ex parte basis. This weighs strongly against sealing the disputed documents. Furthermore, our state's constitution firmly establishes that the public has a fundamental interest in the open administration of justice. WASH. CaNST. art. I, § 10. That interest does not evaporate in parental termination cases. On the contrary, and as the amici brief of Allied Daily Newspapers and the Washington Coalition for Open 15 The only countervailing interest that the superior court's opinion even mentions is the government's budgetary interest in assuring that [expert] services are, indeed, necessary when an indigent litigant files a motion for public funds. The superior court did not recognize that the public also has an interest in such expenditures, nor did it recognize the other countervailing interests discussed below. 27 In re the Dependency of M.H.P, No. 90468-5 Government states, the public has a strong interest in parental termination cases to ensure that state laws are serving their intended purpose to nurture healthy families and protect children. Amicus Curiae Mem. at 1. The public's interest is heightened yet further in this case because the motions in question called for the expenditure of public funds, which is of interest to both the State and the public. In the instant case, public funds were, in fact, wasted because the discovery deadline had already passed at the time the parents filed the motion for expert services. While that specific set of procedural facts obviously will be the exception rather than the rule when indigent parents seek public funds to hire experts, it nonetheless illustrates the errors that can occur in the adversary system when a court decides motions without providing all parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Finally, two of the parents' motions requested that the court permit a potential expert to conduct a parent-child observation or parenting observation. Assuming such observations involve the presence of the dependent child, the court should have considered the Department's and the CASP\s interests regarding such observation sessions. Because M.H.P. was in the custody of the State throughout this period, those countervailing interests appear quite strong. This further weighs against the sealing of the disputed documents. Each party in a parental termination case has important interests at stake, which makes compliance with a// applicable court rules-including t~e rules regarding the sealing of documents-all the more vital. The superior court did not adequately 28 In re the Dependency of M.H.P., No. 90468-5 consider the important interests at stake for the State, the child, and the public. The fourth Ishikawa factor was not satisfied.