In re M.L.W.
| Docket Number | 83810-5-I,83811-3-I |
| Decision Date | 18 September 2023 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Dependency of M.L.W and I.A.W., Minor Children |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Washington |
T.W appeals a trial court order terminating her parental rights to two of her children, I.A.W. and M.L.W. T.W. argues that (1) the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (Department) failed to provide family therapy as a necessary service, (2) the Department failed to prove continuation of T.W.'s parental rights diminished I.A.W. and M.L.W.'s integration into a stable home, and (3) the trial court erred in denying her older child, M.W.'s, motion to intervene. We affirm.
T.W has three children: her son, M.W., was born in 2006, her daughter, I.A.W., was born in 2011, and her other daughter M.L.W., was born in 2014. M.W. and I.A.W. have no father listed on their birth certificate. It is unknown whether M.L.W. has a father listed on her birth certificate. The children are not Indian children as defined in RCW 13.38.040 and 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4), and the federal and state Indian Child Welfare Acts do not apply.
The family has been involved with child welfare agencies based on allegations of negligent treatment and T.W.'s substance use since 2006. This is T.W.'s third dependency case.[1]
In August 2018, the Department filed a dependency petition because of the family's Child Protective Services history and recent reports that detailed the children being left unattended at a park, visiting a neighbor's home and asking for food, and being found stealing and unattended at a grocery store. The children also witnessed a physical altercation between T.W. and her partner that M.W. intervened in, and M.L.W. was burned by hot oil in an unattended pan. The Department placed the children in licensed foster care, where they remained throughout the dependency. Agreed orders of dependency were entered on March 11, 2019.
Throughout the dependency, T.W. was ordered to participate in a psychological evaluation and agreed service recommendations, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, urinalysis testing (UA), and in-home services if reunification was imminent.
In late 2019, T.W. completed a psychological evaluation with Dr. Tatyana Shepel, a clinical psychologist with a specialty in neuropsychology. At both evaluation sessions, T.W. was under the influence of substances and displayed drowsy behavior and slurred speech. Dr. Shepel diagnosed T.W. with depression, anxiety disorder, and a personality disorder. Dr. Shepel recommended treating T.W.'s mental health along with her substance use. But Dr. Shepel found T.W. not amenable to treatment because she had an outright denial of problems and did not understand the need to change.
In December 2019, the Department filed a termination petition, alleging that T.W. was not engaged in substance abuse treatment and that she had not complied with Dr. Shepel's recommendations.
In March 2020, T.W. entered Seadrunar, an inpatient substance abuse treatment program, after her first social worker, Natasha Utevsky, helped her find the program. Days before the Department's final reunification planning meeting, T.W. violated a serious rule at Seadrunar by engaging in an intimate relationship with another participant. As a result, the reunification plan fell through. T.W. claimed that she was discriminated against and that they didn't place her children with her, so she left Seadrunar.
After T.W. left Seadrunar, social worker Rachael O'Riordan referred T.W. to Navos for substance abuse and mental health treatment. At Navos, T.W. had a positive UA, which increased the intensity of treatment. T.W. tested positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and cannabis. From April to August 2021, T.W. denied her drug testing results.
At the request of T.W.'s Office of Public Defense social work team, in April 2021, social worker Colleen Stark-Bell referred T.W. to chemical dependency provider Shundra King at For The Culture for substance abuse treatment. King started T.W. with outpatient treatment, but increased that to intensive outpatient treatment after receiving positive UA results. King found that T.W. had a disconnect when she began addressing T.W. about her positive UAs. But King finally convinced T.W. that inpatient treatment was necessary. The termination trial had begun in October 2021, but it was paused to allow T.W. to enter inpatient treatment. T.W. completed the inpatient program at Turning Point.
Substance use disorder counselor Joshua Sweet testified that although T.W. gained skills in inpatient treatment, she needed a year in outpatient treatment to succeed in recovery. T.W. was set to resume intensive outpatient treatment with King after Turning Point, but she did not come back. T.W. also did not participate in UA testing. Because T.W. was not participating in intensive outpatient treatment, King could not give a complete prognosis for T.W.
Just as King started as T.W.'s substance abuse counselor, Trenecsia Wilson became her mental health counselor. Wilson found that T.W. had an underlying issue of guardedness and minimizing that led her to have continuous issues. After Wilson reached out to schedule more sessions, T.W. did not return.
T.W. had a strong bond of affection with her children. The family had regular visits up to 12 hours each week. However, as the dependency went on, emotions during the visits escalated because the children were still living in foster care despite T.W.'s claim that she was doing everything she needed for them to return to her. The children showed both emotional and physical reactions to T.W.'s unfulfilled promises. I.A.W. would lose control of her bladder. M.L.W.'s confusion led her to believe that removal was her fault and that if she had been a "better kid," she could go home with T.W. I.A.W. and M.L.W. were in therapy during the dependency. Joan Freeman, I.A.W. and M.L.W.'s guardian ad litem (GAL), testified that if the dependency were to continue for another year, it would decrease the children's sense of security and stability.
To help her understand I.A.W. and M.L.W.'s needs, and how she could meet them as a parent, social worker Stark-Bell referred T.W. to Lauren Brown, a therapist that provides in-home services. Brown oversaw T.W.'s completion of the Triple P parenting education service. Brown concluded that T.W. had basic parenting skills. But Brown remained concerned about the dynamic between T.W. and her children because T.W. continued to deny her substance use.
Brown recommended family therapy for T.W., I.A.W., and M.L.W. Stark-Bell did not, however, make the referral because, after consulting Christine Patuvak, I.A.W. and M.L.W.'s therapist, Stark-Bell determined that family therapy would not be appropriate for T.W. at that time because T.W. was still not admitting to substance use despite positive testing results.
The original termination filing involved all three children. But by the time of trial M.W. was 15 years old, and under RCW 26.33.160(1)(a) he had to agree to adoption.[2]On October 13, 2021, M.W.'s termination petition was dismissed after he did not agree to adoption.
On October 18, 2021, the Department and the court appointed special advocate (CASA) filed a joint pretrial motion requesting that M.W. not be allowed legal participation in the trial. In response, M.W. argued that he should be allowed to intervene to address the sibling relationship and the best interests of his sisters. The Department and CASA argued that M.W. did not have a legal interest in his siblings' cases.
The trial court denied M.W.'s motion to intervene. The trial court found that M.W.'s intervention request was much like that of the older siblings in In re Dependency of J.D.P., 17 Wn.App. 2d 744, 487 P.3d 960 (2021). The trial court determined that, as in J.D.P., M.W.'s interests in ongoing contact with his siblings are considered in dependency and adoption proceedings, so they are not properly considered in the termination proceeding.
The trial court also denied permissive intervention. The trial court found that M.W. had not shown a common question of law or fact that would support permissive intervention. The termination trial went forward without M.W.'s participation.
The termination trial lasted 24 days between October 2021 and February 2022. Seventeen witnesses testified at the trial and over 200 exhibits were admitted into evidence. The trial court found that despite numerous services and programs offered to T.W., she had not progressed in her core parental deficiencies of substance abuse and mental health. The trial court also observed that T.W. was still in denial and not being honest with herself or the court when it came to her substance use and substance use disorder. Given this, the trial court did not believe that T.W. could successfully remedy her substance abuse in the near future for her children. The trial court also found that family therapy was not a necessary service because reunification was not imminent. On February 18, 2022, the trial court terminated T.W.'s parental rights to I.A.W. and M.L.W.
T.W. appeals.
An appellate court's role in reviewing a trial court's decision to terminate parental rights is to determine whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466, 477, 379 P.3d 75 (2016). Evidence is substantial if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below-here, the Department-it is such that a rational trier of fact could find the fact in question by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Dependency of M.P., 76 Wn.App. 87, 90-91,882 P.2d 1180 (1994). Termination proceedings are highly...
To continue reading
Request your trial