In re Welfare of K.M.
| Decision Date | 14 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | 53328-6-II |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Welfare of: K.M. Minor Child. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
K.M appeals the dismissal of her petition for writ of habeas corpus. She argues that (1) the Pierce County (PC) juvenile court erred by dismissing her petition as moot; (2) even if the petition is moot, it presents an issue of continuing and substantial public interest; (3) the King County (KC) juvenile court erred by finding her in contempt of the dependency order under RCW 13.34.165 when she is not a party to the dependency proceeding; (4) the KC juvenile court erred by finding her in contempt of the dependency order because she did not violate the conditions of the order; and (5) the contempt orders deprived her of due process.
We conclude that K.M.'s petition for habeas corpus is moot and does not present an issue of continuing and substantial public interest. Therefore, we affirm the PC juvenile court's dismissal of the petition as moot.
K.M was born in September 2004. Her brother died in a car accident in 2012, her mother died of cancer in 2016, and her father committed suicide in 2017. K.M.'s other brother allegedly sexually abused K.M., and his whereabouts are unknown. After the death of her parents, K.M.'s aunt and uncle, the Delgados, obtained legal guardianship, and K.M. resided with them beginning in September 2017.
The Delgados suspected that K.M.'s other uncle had sexually abused K.M. and they twice reported suspected abuse. The Delgados also expressed concern about K.M.'s "hyper activity, mental health, and . . . sexualized behavior" and informed the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (the Department)[1] that they did not feel capable of taking care of K.M. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 144.
On January 23, 2018, the Department filed a dependency petition. At the Shelter Care hearing on January 24, the KC juvenile court found that "[r]eturning the child to the home would seriously endanger the child's health, safety, and welfare." CP at 203. K.M. was placed in temporary custody and under the supervision of the Department.
CP at 147. On March 30, the KC juvenile court entered an Order of Disposition on Dependency confirming K.M.'s placement with the Department as of March 23.
On May 16, the KC juvenile court issued an arrest warrant for K.M. after the Department moved for an order to show cause based on K.M.'s violation of the March 23 placement order. The KC juvenile court found probable cause that K.M. had violated her placement order because she had left her placement on May 13 and had not returned.
K.M. was arrested on May 29. At a detention review hearing on May 30, K.M. admitted to being in violation of her placement order. The KC juvenile court found K.M. in contempt and gave K.M. credit for 1 day time served. The contempt order stated that K.M. could purge the contempt by reading a book on human trafficking. K.M. was released to the Department. This contempt order was not purged.
On June 27, the KC juvenile court issued another arrest warrant for K.M. after the Department moved for an order to show cause regarding K.M.'s contempt for again violating the March 23 placement order. The KC juvenile court found probable cause that K.M. had again violated the placement order because she had run away from her placement and refused to return.
K.M. was arrested on July 31[2]. During a detention review hearing on August 1, K.M. admitted to being in violation of the March 23 placement order. The KC juvenile court held K.M. in contempt and released her after 1 day in detention. The juvenile court did not impose any purge requirements, and K.M. was ordered to return to court-ordered placement.
On September 6, the KC juvenile court again issued an arrest warrant for K.M. after the Department moved for an order to show cause regarding contempt after K.M. again violated the March 23 placement order. The KC juvenile court found probable cause that K.M. had violated the placement order because she had left her placement on August 2.
K.M. was arrested on November 9. On November 13, the parties agreed to a finding of contempt. During the detention review hearing, K.M. admitted "that [she] was in violation of [the] placement order." CP at 66. The KC juvenile court entered a contempt order, requiring that K.M. be held in detention for 6 days with a purge condition to write a one-page paper about where she sees herself in one year. On November 14, the KC juvenile court entered a release order for K.M., stating, "The youth has purged her contempt by complying with the conditions set forth in this court's orders and completing her purge paper." CP at 63. The KC juvenile court released K.M. to the Department for placement in accordance with prior court orders.
On December 20, the KC juvenile court issued an arrest warrant for K.M. after the Department again moved for an order to show cause regarding K.M.'s contempt in violating the March 23 placement order. The KC juvenile court found probable cause that K.M. had violated the placement order because she had refused to be transported to placement on December 14, and had run away from the social worker and a police officer.
K.M. was arrested on January 16, 2019. On January 17, the KC juvenile court continued K.M.'s scheduled contempt hearing to February 11 to allow for briefing and a full evidentiary hearing. K.M. was released from detention and returned to the Department's custody for placement in licensed care. The February 11, hearing was eventually stricken. Thus, K.M. was not found in contempt for a fourth time.
All of the KC juvenile court's show cause orders included the following information:
CP 28-31, 71-73, 81-83, 108-10.
On January 17, 2019, K.M. filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which was the same day her fourth contempt hearing was originally scheduled. On February 8, the KC juvenile court ordered the transfer of K.M.'s cases from King County to Pierce County after all the King County judges were disqualified from the dependency matter and the writ of habeas corpus matter because "the matters are inextricably linked." CP at 8. On, February 26, the KC juvenile court transferred both cases to the PC juvenile court.
The Department filed a motion to accept venue with the PC juvenile court. On March 7, the PC juvenile court held a hearing on the Department's motion to accept venue of K.M.'s two consolidated cases - the dependency and the habeas corpus petition.
At the venue hearing, the Department informed the PC juvenile court that K.M.'s Verified Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 5-6. K.M.'s lawyer argued that her liberty remained restrained because she could be re-arrested at any time. K.M.'s lawyer also argued that the March 23 order placing her in foster care did not specify where she was supposed to be and the consequences for her failure to comply. The PC juvenile court accepted venue over K.M.'s objection and then dismissed the habeas petition as moot.
In the Order Accepting Venue, the Pierce County juvenile court ordered:
K.M. appeals.
The right to challenge an unlawful restraint by writ of habeas corpus is guaranteed by the Washington State Constitution. Const. Art. IV, section 6. The State Legislature has codified this right in RCW 7.36.010: "Every person restrained of his or her liberty under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the restraint, and shall be delivered therefrom when illegal." If the petitioner shows that her restraint is illegal, the court must discharge her. RCW 7.36.120. The propriety of the writ of habeas corpus is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. In re Personal Restraint of Becker, 96 Wn.App. 902, 905, 982 P.2d 639 (1999) aff'd, 143 Wn.2d 491, 20 P.3d 409 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial