In re Welfare of B.P.

• Citation: 353 P.3d 224,188 Wash.App. 113
• Decision Date: 04 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 32437–1–III.,32437–1–III.
• Parties: In re the WELFARE OF B.P. (DOB: 7/8/11).
• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington

188 Wash.App. 113

353 P.3d 224

In re the WELFARE OF B.P. (DOB: 7/8/11).

No. 32437–1–III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3.

June 4, 2015.

Kristina M. Nichols, Nichols Law Firm, PLLC, Spokane, WA, for Appellant.

Amy Suzanne Soth, Attorney General's Office, Spokane, WA, for Respondent.

Opinion

BROWN, J.

¶ 1 H.O. appeals the termination of her parental rights over B.P. H.O. contends substantial evidence does not support the court's findings that (1) all necessary services were expressly and understandably offered or provided her, (2) little likelihood existed to remedy conditions so B.P. could be returned to her in the near future, (3) her continued parent-child relationship diminished B.P.'s prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home, (4) terminating her parental rights was in B.P.'s best interests, and (5) she was unfit to parent B.P. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2 Soon after B.P.'s birth on July 8, 2011, the Department of Social and Health Services (Department) became involved with her and her family. The Department had previously been involved with the mother and her three other children who are no longer in her care. A hospital hold was placed on B.P. at birth because she was withdrawing from methamphetamine, which H.O. exposed her to during pregnancy. The mother has been a long time user of illegal substances, including heroin and methamphetamine.

¶ 3 On July 13, 2011, the Department petitioned for dependency, alleging parental deficiencies based on substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health, and parenting skills. The Department then removed B.P. from the mother's care, and after a shelter care hearing, B.P. remained in foster care. The mother agreed to participate in random drug and alcohol testing, hands-on parent training, and mental health treatment.

¶ 4 Later, H.O. entered inpatient treatment at Isabella House, a six-month inpatient program incorporating parenting services.

Isabella House permits the placement of children with their mothers at the facility. Initially, the mother entered Isabella House without B.P., but based in part on the mother's progress while there, B.P. was allowed to stay with H.O. on September 27, 2011.

¶ 5 While H.O. was at Isabella House, the Department referred her to Carla Paullin for individual counseling. Ms. Paullin indicated she learned the mother had a traumatic childhood, an extensive criminal record, a lengthy history of substance abuse and relapse

, and failed to parent her children for quite some time. Ms. Paullin concluded the mother presented symptoms consistent with personality disorder that exacerbated the mother's impulsivity, inability to cope, and poor decision-making. Further, Ms. Paullin believed the mother was extremely institutionalized, making her ability to improve and stay sober largely contingent upon her presence in highly-structured settings.

¶ 6 In February 2012, H.O. completed inpatient treatment at Isabella House. Then, she and B.P. moved to a transition home where women who have completed the inpatient program can live while they are looking for permanent housing if they follow certain rules. Isabella House evicted H.O. from the transition home in June 2012 when H.O. relapsed, causing the court to remove B.P. from H.O.'s care.

¶ 7 Into the fall of 2012, H.O. continued to use methamphetamine. H.O. had not been engaging in services and had been sporadically visiting B.P. H.O. admitted she had been high during those visits.

¶ 8 In May 2013, a pregnant H.O. reentered Isabella House. She gave birth in June 2013 to A.O. That summer, the mother began working with a new individual counselor, Sandra Gorman–Brown. Treatment focused on the mother's capacity to process traumatic events from her past. H.O. still had unresolved emotional issues directly related to her past, which has been and continues to be a significant barrier to her recovery as it has caused her maladaptive coping strategies. According to her individual counselor, the mother struggles to “feel her feelings,” which has made her unable to have empathy—a significant skill needed to parent children. Clerk's Papers at 168.

¶ 9 H.O. graduated from Isabella House in December of 2013. She began outpatient treatment with Partners with Families and Children, which provides a full range of services for children who have suffered abuse and/or neglect as well as provides mental health and chemical dependency treatment for parenting individuals and their family members. At the time of trial, H.O.'s Partners counselor testified H.O. had missed some support group meetings and thus was noncompliant with her outpatient treatment.

¶ 10 In August 2013, the court ordered supervised visits between H.O. and B.P. Lori Eastep, a family therapist, supervised. Between October 2013 and February 2014, Ms. Eastep had 22 therapeutic visits with H.O. and B.P., with each visit lasting two hours. The main focus was B.P.'s complete disconnect from the mother created by the mother's absence from B.P.'s life. As Ms. Eastep opined, children are just beginning to attach to their caregivers at this critical stage. Due to H.O.'s choices, B.P. had to endure multiple placements that not only inhibited B.P.'s attachment to her mother but complicated B.P.'s capacity to attach generally. Ms. Eastep believed B.P. would never be able to form a real attachment to the mother and that forcing B.P. to do so would significantly injure B.P.'s mental health.

¶ 11 In November 2013, H.O., B.P. and A.O. met with Carol Thomas for a parenting assessment. Regarding healthy attachment, Ms. Thomas indicated the window essentially closes after the first year of life. Having healthy attachment is critical to an individual's mental health. Ms. Thomas observed no evidence of attachment between B.P. and the mother; at best, any connection between mother and child was characterized as a developing social relationship. Ms. Thomas reviewed B.P.'s placement history. Given B.P.'s age and the number of disruptions in placement she had experienced, Ms. Thomas felt B.P. would struggle with forming healthy attachments more than average children, and any further disruptions in placement would increase the likelihood B.P. would never be able to form a healthy attachment.

¶ 12 At the termination trial, Ms. Eastep described H.O.'s relationship with B.P. as a social relationship with an emerging emotional aspect. She further noted an individual's own mental and emotional well-being were fundamental to meet a child's needs. Here, the mother was not able to do that for B.P.

¶ 13 H.O.'s current counselor, Ms. Gormon–Brown also testified to her concerns about B.P. returning to H.O.'s care and noted H.O. could not be emotionally available to B.P.¶ 14 B.P.'s guardian ad litem Karen Schweigert testified B.P. was in H.O.'s care from September 2011 to June 2012 and B.P. did fairly well. She testified the relationship between H.O. and B.P. initially was remarkable and “[w]hen [H.O.'s] sober, she is a really good mother.” Report of Proceedings (RP) at 240. Ms. Schweigert admitted she has not seen H.O. and B.P. together since their visits resumed in August 2013. She described B.P. as a happy, healthy, and outgoing girl. Ms. Schweigert testified B.P. “still has some issues as far as adjusting to disruptions in her schedule.” RP at 230–31. She acknowledged that although it took B.P. some time to get used to the visits with H.O., B.P. adapted.

¶ 15 Ms. Schweigert testified to her concerns about H.O.'s ability to put B.P.'s needs ahead of her own. She acknowledged her concerns about H.O.'s decision making based primarily from information she received from B.P.'s current foster parents. When asked to identify H.O.'s parenting deficiencies, Ms. Schweigert testified H.O. had not had an opportunity to parent by herself outside of structured settings. Ms. Schweigert testified she does not think B.P. can be reunified with H.O., because B.P. is attached to her then current placement. She stated her significant concern for B.P. is her lost attachment to H.O. Lastly, Ms. Schweigert testified termination of H.O.'s parental rights is in B.P.'s best interests.

¶ 16 The trial court determined the Department satisfied its burden under RCW 13.34.180. The trial court issued an oral ruling and later entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court specifically found the Department had established each element of RCW 13.34.180 by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. It expressly found H.O. was currently unfit to parent and that termination of the mother's parental rights were in B.P.'s best interest. H.O. appealed.

ANALYSIS

A. Necessary Services

¶ 17 The issue is whether the trial court erred by finding that all necessary services were expressly and understandably offered or provided. H.O. contends substantial evidence does not support this finding and specifically argues the Department failed to offer attachment therapy to her.

¶ 18 Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and companionship of their children. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). As such, the State may interfere with parents' rights “only for the most powerful of reasons.” In re S.J., 162 Wash.App. 873, 880, 256 P.3d 470 (2011) (quoting In re Welfare of A.J.R., 78 Wash.App. 222, 229, 896 P.2d 1298 (1995) ). When the parental actions may cause harm or a risk of harm to the child, the State has a right and responsibility to protect the child. A.J.R., 78 Wash.App. at 229, 896 P.2d 1298 ; In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wash.2d 1, 18, 969 P.2d 21 (1998). Therefore, “reunification must be balanced against the child's right to basic nurture, physical and mental health, and safety; ultimately, the child's rights and safety should prevail.” In re Welfare of A.G., 155 Wash.App. 578, 589, 229 P.3d 935 (2010).

¶ 19 Washington courts use a two-step process to determine whether to terminate parental rights. RCW 13.34.180(1) ; In re Welfare of...