 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Dependency of C. C.3/1/1999
the first supervised visit, Leonardson noted that Mother and Father were very angry and "didn't pay very much attention to the baby." 2 Report of Proceedings at 12. During the second visit, she observed that Mother and Father were focused exclusively on C. C., but that Mother's "comments and activities were unusual, bordering on the bizarre." Id. at 16. Leonardson testified that she was concerned about Mother and Father's ability to protect C. C. from physical harm. Thus, she opined that "{e}ven if {Mother and Father} had gone to all these services that . . . they were . . . required by law to do, even then I think their deficits are such that they probably would not have been able to provide a secure, stable, safe environment for {C. C.}" Id. at 28.
Father testified that he was unemployed and had not held anything more than temporary employment during the previous 5 years. In addition, the termination hearing record contains testimony that Father's hygiene problems were so severe "that people would have to leave the building when {Father and Mother} came to visit their child." 3 Report of Proceedings at 174.
The parents submitted testimony from Dr. George Benjamin, a clinical psychologist specializing in training professionals how to psychologically evaluate parents and families. Dr. Benjamin reviewed Dr. Johnson's report and found it to be "very adequate." 4 Report of Proceedings at 61. But he opined that the court should not make a decision concerning Father's and Mother's parental rights until further professional evaluation was done. He indicated that such further evaluation could be done by his students under his supervision if the State were willing to pay more for the evaluation than required by the then-current contract between Dr. Benjamin and the State.
The parents also presented testimony from one of Mother's co-workers and another witness that Mother was a gentle, reliable employee who loved children and that Mother and Father had a loving relationship.
On June 13, 1997, the trial court terminated Mother and Father's parent-child relationships with C. C. They appeal.
DISCUSSION
"An order terminating parental rights must be affirmed if substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings in light of the degree of proof required." In re Dependency of H. W., 92 Wn. App. 420, 961 P.2d 963, 966 (1998). A trial court may enter such an order if it finds that the State establishes six allegations by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. RCW 13.34.180, -.190; In re Dependency of J. C., 130 Wn.2d 418, 427, 924 P.2d 21 (1996). The trial court must also find by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interest of the child. H. W., 961 P.2d at 966.
In the present case, Mother and Father dispute the trial court's findings that all services ordered were offered or provided, and that all necessary services, reasonably available and capable of correcting their parental deficiencies in the foreseeable future were offered or provided; that there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that C. C. can be returned to them in the near future; and that continuation of their parent and child relationships would clearly diminish C. C.'s prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home. See RCW 13.34.180 (4)-(6). Each parent also challenges the trial court's findings that he and she have psychological incapacities or mental deficiencies that are so severe and chronic as to render them incapable of providing proper care of the child for extended periods of time and that both parents were unresponsive, hostile and distrustful of their caseworkers and not amenable to work
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|