Halsted v. Sallee, 4191-III-3

• Decision Date: 21 January 1982
• Docket Number: No. 4191-III-3,4191-III-3
• Citation: 31 Wn.App. 193,639 P.2d 877
• Parties: Sandra Lee HALSTED, formerly Sallee, Respondent, v. Donald Eugene SALLEE, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 193

31 Wn.App. 193

639 P.2d 877

Sandra Lee HALSTED, formerly Sallee, Respondent, v. Donald Eugene SALLEE, Appellant.

No. 4191-III-3.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel 4.

Jan. 21, 1982.

Steven M. Clem, Wenatchee, for appellant.

Michael E. Gillespie, Tonasket, for respondent.

ROE, Judge.

Donald and Sandra Sallee were divorced on February 6, 1973. Custody of the two minor children was awarded to the mother. She has since remarried and her name is now Halsted. On June 14, 1979, she filed a petition for modification of visitation rights, asking that visitation be restricted to supervised telephone calls once per week and "such other and additional supervised visitation as should seem reasonable to petitioner herein." This was based on her affidavit which stated, among other things, that Mr. Sallee had suffered mental illness, and had had a confrontation with local police. After an order to show cause was issued, an additional motion to modify was filed on July 12, 1979. This asked that the modification "should restrict all visitation and contact between respondent and the minor children pending the out come (sic) of Mental Health report ordered on said date by the court."

Despite the fact there was no petition as provided by RCW 13.34 to terminate all parental rights, the trial court nevertheless did. On November 26, 1979, the trial court not only enjoined Mr. Sallee from personal contacts of any nature with any of the Halsted family, including his two minor children, it also enjoined him from traveling north of the City of Omak, Washington during the pendency of the case. Then, on September 11, 1980, the court entered the following order:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Donald Eugene Sallee is divested of all legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties and obligations provided by law in and to Danny Sallee and Debbie Sallee.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that respondent, Donald Sallee, shall not communicate or contact the minor children, Danny Sallee or Debbie Sallee, in any manner whatsoever, including without limitation, phone calls, letters, or gifts; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that respondent, Donald Sallee shall not travel in Okanogan County, Washington north of the town of Omak until further order of this court.

We are confronted with the termination of parental rights without due notice; we also must consider the reasonableness of the order prohibiting Mr. Sallee from traveling north of Omak. A parent's right to control and to have the custody of his children is a fundamental civil right which may not be interfered with without the complete protection of due process safeguards. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); In re Luscier, 84 Wash.2d 135, 524 P.2d 906 (1974). The specific requirements of due process were spelled out in In re Martin, 3 Wash.App. 405, 410, 476 P.2d 134 (1970):

We hold that in a dependency proceeding in which deprivation of all parental rights will be considered by the court, constitutional due process and fair treatment require that parents receive notice of the specific issues to be considered, including a clear and concise statement that the hearing may result in deprivation of all parental rights. The parents must be clearly advised in adequate time to meet that serious issue to prevent surprise, helplessness and disadvantage. Moreover, definite allegations of the purpose of the hearing are necessary to enable the parents to determine intelligently whether to admit or contest the petition.

The applicable statutory provisions for termination of a parent and child relationship under RCW 13.34 set out an elaborate scheme for providing all parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard. RCW 13.34.090 specifies particular procedural rights to be accorded the parties throughout all phases of the proceedings. RCW 13.34.110 requires the court to hold a fact finding hearing on the petition. RCW 13.34.120 requires a social study and predisposition study be submitted to the court. Finally, RCW 13.34.190 provides the court may enter an order terminating all parental rights if it finds that the allegations contained in the petition as provided in RCW 13.34.180(1)-(6) are established by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Such allegations are:

(1) That the child has been found to be a dependent child under RCW 13.34.030(2); and

(2) That the court has entered a dispositional order pursuant to RCW 13.34.130; and

(3) That the child has been removed or will, at the time of the hearing, have been removed from the custody of the parent for a period of at least six months pursuant to a finding of dependency under RCW 13.34.030(2); and

(4) That the services ordered under RCW 13.34.130 have been offered or provided and all necessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been offered or provided; and

(5) That there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that...