In re S.B.
| Docket Number | 39186-8-III,39187-6-III,39188-4-III |
| Decision Date | 31 October 2023 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Dependency of S.B. In the Matter of the Dependency of E.G.D. In the Matter of the Dependency of L.S.B. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
1
In the Matter of the Dependency of S.B. In the Matter of the Dependency of E.G.D. In the Matter of the Dependency of L.S.B.
Nos. 39186-8-III, 39187-6-III, 39188-4-III
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3
October 31, 2023
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Cooney, J.
M.B.[1] appeals an order of dependency as to his three children. The court found M.B.'s children dependent under RCW 13.34.030(6)(c) after a contested fact-finding hearing.
M.B. appeals, arguing there is insufficient evidence to support the court's finding of dependency. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
M.B. is the biological father and S.G. the biological mother of three children under the age of 10: Stella, Liam, and Emily.[2] M.B. and S.G. met in 2013. S.G. became pregnant with the couple's first child, Stella, in 2014 and soon thereafter gave birth to their son, Liam. S.G. refused to put M.B. on the children's birth certificates, apparently due to the fact that she was still married to someone else, but, when asked, reported that M.B. was the father of the children.
M.B.'s and S.G.'s relationship was rocky and short-lived. M.B. moved out of the house they were renting and limited his visits with S.G. and the children to weekends. Despite his best efforts to tidy the home and bathe the children when he visited, M.B. often observed that S.G.'s home was "destroyed" and that the children "were still wearing the same clothes that they were a week ago." Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 2 RP (Aug. 5, 2022) at 149. M.B. suspected S.G. was struggling with substance abuse and untreated mental health issues.
In June 2016, M.B. left S.G. and the children to return to his home in Illinois. Six months after moving to Illinois, M.B. learned S.G. was pregnant with their third child, Emily. M.B.'s contact with his three children after June 2016 was sporadic, in part due to
S.G.'s inconsistency in answering her phone, which was often shut off. M.B. did not see his children in person again until April 2020, when he visited for a week.[3] At the time of his visit, M.B. observed that the condition of S.G.'s home was "a huge concern," but did not seek to establish paternity or alert child welfare services or law enforcement. 2 RP (Aug. 5, 2022) at 152. He claimed at one point he attempted to contact Oregon Child Protective Services (CPS) to provide information, as CPS had an open case against M.G., but was unable to obtain or exchange any information because his paternity remained unconfirmed. M.B. occasionally sent S.G. and the children money orders from Walmart, but stopped doing so after a time because he "wasn't . . . exactly sure where that money was going." 2 RP (Aug. 5, 2022) at 163.
Around 2018, M.B. began dating A.T., another Illinois resident. A.T. became pregnant a few months into her relationship with M.B., and the pair had a second child shortly after the birth of their first. In 2021, M.B. purchased a home in Illinois. At any given point, there were at least three, and often more than five, children in M.B.'s and A.T.'s home: M.B.'s and A.T.'s two toddlers, A.T.'s two daughters from a previous relationship, and M.B.'s teenage daughter from a previous relationship. The couple's two toddlers and A.T.'s youngest daughter lived in the home full-time. Both A.T.'s oldest child and M.B.'s teenage daughter lived in the home part-time, usually every other
weekend. Additionally, the children's cousins and friends often stayed over, such that the couple had "a house full of kids all the time." 2 RP (Aug. 5, 2022) at 134. Because M.B. worked outside the home five days a week, A.T. was the primary caregiver.
Although the couple blended their families in a shared home together, their relationship with each other was not always cohesive. On at least four occasions, law enforcement officers responded to their home in response to the couple reporting domestic disputes against one another. Although neither were ever arrested, in each response, law enforcement officers noted allegations of physical violence, signs of physical violence, or allegations of violence towards a child.
The first call was made by A.T. on June 5, 2019. According to the responding officer, A.T. told her that an argument over the television remote control had escalated into her and M.B. pushing each other. At the time, the couple was going through a breakup. Neither party wished to file a complaint against the other and it was mutually agreed that M.B. would leave the residence for the day. The police report listed M.B. as the suspect and A.T. as the reporting party.
The second report took place on May 25, 2020. According to the responding officer, the couple was having a verbal argument and wished for him to resolve the situation so it would not escalate into a physical confrontation. Both parties said that their argument the night before had become physical, but had varying accounts of who was the aggressor. According to M.B., A.T. had struck him. A.T. disagreed, and stated
M.B. had pushed her youngest daughter to the ground. M.B., however, maintained that he simply yanked a bag of chips out of the child's hand while scolding her and that she accidentally fell over when he did so. The parties agreed that they did not want to file complaints against each other and A.T. left the residence for the night "to cool off." 1 RP (Aug. 4, 2022) at 53. The report listed A.T. as the suspect/offender and M.B. as the victim.[4]
Within a month, on June 20, 2020, police were called again by M.B. According to the responding officer, M.B. and A.T. each claimed that the other had physically attacked them. A.T. claimed M.B. was irate and throwing items around. Apparently, when she neared him, he pushed her into a wall. A.T. defended herself by slapping M.B. By contrast, M.B. asserted that he had accidentally knocked something off their dresser, which caused A.T. to grow angry and slap him. Like the previous domestic disputes, neither party wanted to sign a complaint. M.B. decided to leave for the evening. The police report listed A.T. as the suspect/offender and M.B. as the victim.
The fourth incident took place in December 2021. M.B. told a responding officer that in the midst of a verbal argument, A.T. had hit his arms and face. Although it was a dark winter night, the officer could "observe red marks on [M.B.'s] forearms." 1 RP (Aug. 4, 2022) at 58. A different deputy, who did not testify at trial, spoke with A.T.,
who said that it was M.B. who had become physical with her. A.T. also reportedly had red marks on her arm where her shirt had become ripped. Again, neither party wished to pursue a complaint, and M.B. left for the evening. A.T. was listed as the suspect/offender and M.B. as the victim. From December 2021 to roughly February or March 2022, the couple were estranged from one another.
Meanwhile, S.G. continued to struggle to care for Stella, Liam, and Emily. Sometime in 2020, she had a fourth child with her new partner, M.E.[5] In December 2021, the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) received a report that S.G., M.E., and the children were struggling to secure stable housing and were imminently going to be evicted from S.G.'s friend's home, where they were temporarily residing. It was also reported that S.G. was allegedly abusing substances and oversleeping, causing the children to miss school. The DCYF-assigned social worker, Kristin Smith, observed that the children often showed up to school looking "disheveled." 1 RP (Aug. 4, 2022) at 14. Ms. Smith met S.G. approximately one month later, in January 2022, at S.G.'s maternal great aunt's home in Walla Walla.[6]
S.G. told Ms. Smith that she had used methamphetamine in the past, but insisted she was not currently using. She further maintained she was adequately supervising the
children and had a housing voucher she intended to use to secure a stable living situation. DCYF offered S.G. family voluntary services, which she declined. The children were not brought into DCYF custody at that time.
About a month later, on February 4, 2022, staff at the children's elementary school contacted law enforcement after the children were found alone at a scheduled home visit.[7]Law enforcement officers contacted Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith and responding officers found that the home where S.G. was staying was "very cluttered" and without a walkway to S.G.'s bedroom. 1 RP (Aug. 4, 2022) at 16. Spoiled food was left on the countertops and a mattress in the middle of the room was covered in trash, blankets, and boxes. Although no drug paraphernalia was seen, the children disclosed in private interviews that S.G., M.E., and the landlord's son, who lived below them, were "'taking medicine'" by putting "'shots'" in their arms, legs, stomach and feet. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 3. One of the older children advised authorities to be careful while walking around the home to avoid getting jabbed by "'the pointy things with the orange caps.'" CP at 3. It was also observed that Stella and Liam, who were seven and six years old at the time, tended to take on a parentified, caretaking role over their younger sister and half-brother. The children reported that M.E. was verbally abusive toward them and would sometimes keep the baby away from S.G. Due to the conditions of the home, the absence of any capable
adult to watch the children, and the children's testimonials, all four minors were taken into protective custody.
Three days later, on February 7, DCYF met with S.G. M.B., who at that point had been contacted by DCYF, attended the meeting virtually. Although invited to join, M.E. did not attend the meeting. According to Ms. Smith:
[S.G.] appeared to have a flat affect while she was speaking to us [regarding] most of the concerns. She again denied any substance use or leaving the children alone. She did say. . . on the day that we-the children were brought into care that she only...
To continue reading
Request your trial