 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Dependency of C. C.3/1/1999
ing with their caseworkers, and that, although all services that are theoretically capable of meeting the parents' needs were offered, in fact, their deficiencies are incapable of being corrected. See RCW 13.34.180(5)(b). In addition, Father maintains that the trial court erred by considering his and Mother's parenting abilities collectively, rather than evaluating each parent separately.
A. All Reasonably Available Services Were Offered or Provided
To satisfy its statutory obligation, the State, must at a minimum provide a parent with a list of referral agencies that provide the recommended services. In re Welfare of Hall, 99 Wn.2d 842, 850, 664 P.2d 1245 (1983). Where, as here, disabled persons are involved, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that the State make reasonable accommodations to allow those persons to receive services or to participate in its programs. In re Welfare of A. J. R., 78 Wn. App. 222, 230, 896 P.2d 1298 (1995) (citing 42 U.S.C. sec. 12132, and 28 C.F.R. sec. 35.130(b)(7)). The court can properly consider any services offered before deprivation proceedings. In re Dependency of C. T., 59 Wn. App. 490, 497, 798 P.2d 1170 (1990). But "a parent's unwillingness or inability to make use of the services provided excuses the State from offering extra services that might have been helpful." In re Dependency of P. A. D., 58 Wn. App. 18, 26, 792 P.2d 159 (1990) (citation omitted).
Here, CPS Caseworkers Gallagher and Self each provided Mother and Father with letters naming referral agencies that provided the services ordered by the dependency court. Although Gallagher's attempt to locate parenting classes through the Division of Developmental Disabilities to accommodate Mother and Father's disabilities failed, Self found appropriate classes through the Association of Retarded Persons. Nonetheless, Mother and Father failed to respond to letters they received about the Association of Retarded Persons classes and failed to maintain regular communication with the caseworkers.
In In re Dependency of H. W., 961 P.2d at 967-68, we held that the State failed to establish that it offered all reasonable available services to a developmentally disabled mother because it did not refer her to Division of Developmental Disabilities or offer her any of the Division's services. In H. W., the mother was "responsive to the training and was, in fact, eager for more services." Id. at 968. But the State argued that any further services would be futile because the mother remained attached to the father, who is a convicted sex offender refusing treatment. Id. We rejected this argument, explaining that the State's concerns over the risk that the father may present to the children did not justify its failure to offer services to the mother. Id.
By contrast, in the present case, Mother and Father are registered with the Division of Developmental Disabilities and the State made reasonable efforts to accommodate Mother and Father by working with the Division to find appropriate classes, and by locating and offering parenting classes through the Association of Retarded Persons. In addition, the State attempted to provide hands-on parenting training during the parents' supervised visitations with Ohm, the experienced home support specialist. Nonetheless, Mother and Father were unwilling or unable to make use of any of these services. Accordingly, the State was not required to offer Mother and Father extra services that might have been helpful. See P. A. D., 58 Wn. App. at 26.
Moreover, Mother and Father do not contest the trial court's finding that Mother's seizures cannot "be controlled sufficiently even with medication." Cle
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.
|
|