In Re Adoption Of F.l.l.

FILED
6/11/2018
Court of Appeals
Division 1
State of Washington
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
In the Matter of the Adoption of )
FLL, a child. ) No. 77391-7-1
)
LB and JB,
Respondents,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION,
WITHDRAWING OPINION,
AND SUBSTITUTING OPINION
)
FL, )
)
Appellant. )
Appellant FL has filed a motion for reconsideration of the opinion filed in the
above matter on April 16, 2018. Respondents LB and JB have filed a response in which
they neither endorse nor object to appellant's motion. The court has determined that
appellant's motion for reconsideration should be granted, the opinion should be
withdrawn and a substitute opinion be filed. Now, therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that appellant's motion for reconsideration is granted. It is further
ORDERED that the opinion filed on April 16, 2018, is withdrawn and a substitute
opinion be filed.
I2-)9cize
V--LAvd--9-ez

F1LEiD
C,OURI Or APPEALS DIV 1
STATE OF WASHINGTON
2018 JUN 1 1 AH 10: 30
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Adoption of
FLL, a child.
LB and JB,
V.
FL,
Respondents,
Appellant.
No. 77391-7-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: June 11,2018
)
BECKER, J. — Shortly after receiving a life sentence for murdering the
mother of one of his sons, appellant FL stopped communicating with FLL, his son
by a different mother. FLL's mother and stepfather, JB and LB, petitioned the
court to terminate FL's parental rights and to adopt FLL. The superior court
granted the petition, finding in part that appellant "has failed to, and is
permanently unable to, perform parental duties." He argues on appeal that the
court relied on inadmissible hearsay and, alternatively, that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
FL and JB married in 2005. They are the biological parents of a boy, FLL,
born in 2005. FL has another son born a year earlier to a different mother.

No. 77391-7-1/2
In 2008, a Mississippi jury convicted appellant of murdering the mother of
the child's half-brother. The jury also convicted him of the kidnapping and felony
child abuse of the child's half-brother. The court sentenced appellant to life in
prison without parole.
In 2012, the child's mother, JB, divorced appellant and married LB. Four
years later, LB petitioned to adopt FLL and to terminate appellant's parental
rights. Following a two-day trial, the superior court granted the petition and
entered the following oral ruling:
Based on all of the evidence in this case, the Court will grant
the Petitioners' request to terminate the parental rights of[FL], and
to permit the child to be adopted by[LB] pursuant to RCW
26.33.120. In doing so, the Court makes an express finding . . .
that there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that[FL] is an
unfit parent based on.. . the parent's failure to perform parental
duties under circumstances showing a substantial lack of regard for
his parental obligations.
This is the threshold issue that the Court must resolve before
looking to the child's best interest. Under statutory interpretation
and also case law, there are five different requirements which
define parental duties: expressions of love and affection,
expressions of personal concern for the health, education, and
wellbeing; and supplying necessary food, clothing, and medical
care; providing adequate domicile; and furnishing social and . . .
religious guidance to the child. The last three [FL]simply is not
capable of doing given his incarceration in Mississippi... for a life
sentence. So, those three prongs,food, clothing, medical care,
housing, and social and religious guidance, are not capable of
being provided. Suppose social guidance could be done through
letters, but more importantly, the expressions of love and affection
and expression of personal concern for the health, education, and
wellbeing, simply there is just no evidence of that in this case.
There was contradictory testimony about when [FL]'s contact
dropped off, but by his own testimony he testified that since 2012
he has had no phone calls and no letters to the child.. ..The
testimony that the mother and [LB] have, you know, rebuffed all
attempts is simply not credible to this Court. This Court finds that if
2

No. 77391-7-1/3
there had been efforts to contact the child, either through family
members of[FL] or—by proxy, or by [FL] himself, that that would've
been allowed. So, the Court finds that[FL] is unfit. .. based on all
of the above.
The Court does want to acknowledge the law in this area,
that parental misconduct does not necessarily—or automatically
result in termination of parental rights. There is plenty of case law
to that effect. But the Court can make a fact-specific determination
whether the misconduct is demonstrative of parental unfitness, and
in this case the Court does find by clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence in the form of a criminal conviction which has been upheld
on appeal that[FL]is unfit to parent the child. Without going into
great detail, because it's simply not necessary, but the conviction of
[FL] with regard to his actions of a terrible neglect of his young son
[FLL's half-brother], born the same year... as[FLL].. ., that
compels this Court to also find that under that conviction, the facts
of it, that he is an unfit parent.
The—there has been no testimony in this case that[FL] has
in any way rehabilitated himself during incarceration. His testimony
that he would be writing but that he doesn't have sufficient
resources to pay for postage, simply not credible. It's not credible
that his family wouldn't assist him in this regard.
With regard to the next area that the Court needs to focus
on, the Court specifically finds that it is in the best interest of this
child to terminate the parental rights of[FL], because he has no
relationship with his birth father, and will not have the opportunity to
have one, and perhaps most importantly, the testimony of[LB]
himself was very compelling in his desire and ability to continue
parenting [FLL] in the way that he has been. He acts as a father
emotionally, physically, and gives him the support, attention, and
devotion that this child needs and, frankly, is thriving under.
That said, this Court finds clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence, also contained in Ms. Kennelly's report and the testimony
that came forth in this case, that it is clearly in. . .[FLL]'s best
interests that this adoption go through, and the Court is willing to
sign any orders to that effect that you have.
(Emphasis added.)
The court subsequently entered the following written findings and
conclusions which incorporated, but partially amended, its oral ruling:
3

No. 77391-7-1/4
2. There is clear, cogent and convincing evidence that it is
in the child's best interests to terminate the relationship.
Biological father has failed to, and is permanently unable
to, perform parental duties. The Court specifically finds
that the respondent father is unfit based on his failure to
perform parental duties under circumstances showing a
substantial lack of regard for his parental obligations.
3. Respondent father is serving a life sentence without
possibility of parole for first-degree murder and felony
child abuse of the subject child's half-brother. The
circumstances blocking respondent father's performance
of his parental obligations demonstrate a substantial lack
of regard for his parental duties.
4. The Respondent father's withholding of consent to the
proposed adoption is contrary to the best interests of the
child.
5. Adoption of[FLL] by his step-father,[LB] is in the child's
best interests.
6. The court has considered the supporting documents,
testimony and argument from parties but did not consider
the report of Kathleen Kennelly,.. .
. . . The Court further incorporates its oral rulings made on
this day with the express exception of any references made to the
Kennelly report and recommendation.
(Emphasis added.) FL appeals.
Standard of Review
Parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest protected by the United
States Constitution. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388,71
L. Ed. 2d 599(1982). To terminate parental rights, the State must satisfy a two-
step test. First, it must prove the following statutory elements by clear, cogent,
and convincing evidence:
(a) That the child has been found to be a dependent child;
(b) That the court has entered a dispositional order pursuant
to RCW 13.34.130;
4

No. 77391-7-1/5
(c) That the child has been removed or will, at the time of the
hearing, have been removed from the custody of the parent for a
period of at least six months pursuant to a finding of dependency;
(d) That the services ordered under RCW 13.34.136 have
been expressly and understandably offered or provided and all
necessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting the
parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been
expressly and understandably offered or provided;
(e) That there is little likelihood that conditions will be
remedied so that the child can be returned to the parent in the near
future.. ..[and]
(f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship
clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a
stable and permanent home.
RCW 13.34.180(1). If the State satisfies these criteria, the court may terminate
parental rights only if the State also demonstrates by a preponderance of the
evidence that termination is in the "best interests" of the child. RCW
13.34.190(2).
In addition to the statutory requirements for termination, due process
protections require a court to find current parental unfitness before parental rights
can be terminated. In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466, 479, 379
P.3d 75 (2016). While "'[i]mprisonment alone does not necessarily justify the
termination of parental rights," an incarcerated parent's "inability to perform his
or her parental obligations is certainly relevant to the child's welfare." In re
Welfare of E.D., 195 Wn. App. 673, 690, 381 P.3d 1230(2016)(quoting In re
Dependency of J.W., 90 Wn. App. 417, 426, 953 P.2d 104 (1998)), review
denied, 187 Wn.2d 1018 (2017). The court need not "disregard the negative
effects that incarceration may have on a delicate parent-child relationship. . .[or]
5

No. 77391-7-1/6
ignore the child's need for timely permanency." E D., 195 Wn. App. at 695. A
parent's prison term may constitute a continuing incapacity affecting the parent's
ability to meet parental obligations. J.W., 90 Wn. App. at 426; In re Welfare of
Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 740, 513 P.2d 831 (1973).
On review, unchallenged findings of fact are considered verities. In re
Interest of J.F., 109 Wn. App. 718, 722, 37 P.3d 1227(2001). Challenged
findings will be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. J.F., 109
Wn. App. at 722. We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony,
credibility of the witnesses, and the weight or persuasiveness of the evidence.
J.F., 109 Wn. App. at 722; In re Termination of S.J., 162 Wn. App. 873, 881, 256
P.3d 470 (2011); State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990).
Termination of FL's Parental Rights
Appellant contends the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights
because it improperly relied on two forms of inadmissible hearsay: (a) a
nontestifying social worker's adoption report and (b) a Mississippi Court of
Appeals opinion upholding appellant's convictions for murder, kidnapping, and
child abuse. We disagree.
Adoption Report
As required by RCW 26.33.200(1), the trial court ordered the preparation
of an adoption report. Kathleen Kennelly, a social worker and guardian ad litem,
prepared the report but did not testify at trial. Kennelly's report stated in part that
adoption was in the child's best interests.
6

No. 77391-7-1/7
Appellant objected to the report's admission for purposes of the
termination petition, arguing that it contained hearsay. Although the court
sustained the objection, its oral ruling suggested it considered the report in
terminating FL's parental rights. The court stated it considered the report "not. . .
for the purposes of the termination per se; just the information in there with
regard to [parental]fitness." In its written decision, however, the court made
clear that it "did not consider the report of Kathleen Kennelly." And while the
court incorporated its tentative oral ruling into its final written ruling, it did so "with
the express exception of any references made to the Kennelly report and
recommendation."
Thus, contrary to FL's assertions, the record establishes that the court did
not consider the adoption report in terminating his parental rights.
Mississippi Appellate Court Decision
Appellant also objected to the trial court's consideration of a Mississippi
appellate decision affirming his convictions for murder, kidnapping, and child
abuse. He argued that the opinion could not be considered for any purpose
other than the fact of conviction. The trial court sustained the objection, ruling
that the contents of the decision were hearsay and irrelevant. In its oral ruling,
however, the court stated:
in this case the Court does find by clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence in the form of a criminal conviction which has been upheld
on appeal that[FL] is unfit to parent the child. Without going into
great detail, because it's simply not necessary, but the conviction of
[FL] with regard to his actions of a terrible neglect of his young son
[FLL's half-brother], born the same year, basically, as[FLL] in this
7

No. 77391-7-1/8
case, that compels this Court to also find that under that conviction,
the facts of it, that he is an unfit parent.
(Emphasis added.) Because the court's written decision incorporated this portion
of its oral ruling without qualification, appellant contends the court improperly
considered hearsay recited in the Mississippi appellate decision and, therefore,
reversal is required. We disagree.
Even assuming the court's oral ruling referenced excluded hearsay,
reversal is required only if, within reasonable probabilities, the error affected the
court's decision. State v. Neal, 144 Wn.2d 600, 611, 30 P.3d 1255(2001). A
review of the court's oral and written rulings demonstrates that the hearsay was
inconsequential to the court's finding of parental unfitness and termination of
appellant's parental rights.
The court's oral ruling focused primarily on five parental duties that courts
may consider in determining parental fitness:
"(1)[E]xpress love and affection for the child;(2) express personal
concern over the health, education and general well-being of the
child; (3]) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing, and
medical care;(4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile; and (5)
the duty to furnish social and religious guidance."
In re the Interests of H.J.P., 114 Wn.2d 522, 531, 789 P.2d 96(1990)(alteration
in original), quoting In re Adoption of Lybbert, 75 Wn.2d 671, 674, 453 P.2d 650
(1969). The court concluded appellant was not capable of fulfilling duties 3, 4,
and 5, "given his incarceration in Mississippi. . . for a life sentence." It further
concluded he had not fulfilled duties 1 and 2 since 2012 despite the ability to
8

No. 77391-7-1/9
contact FLL by phone or letter. In addition, the court relied on the fact of
appellant's "criminal conviction which has been upheld on appeal."
Similarly, the court's written ruling focused on appellant's convictions,
incarceration, and failure/inability to perform his parental duties during his
incarceration:
2. There is clear, cogent and convincing evidence that it is
in the child's best interests to terminate the relationship.
Biological father has failed to, and is permanently unable
to, perform parental duties. The Court specifically finds
that the respondent father is unfit based on his failure to
perform parental duties under circumstances showing a
substantial lack of regard for his parental obligations.
3. Respondent father is serving a life sentence without
possibility of parole for first-degree murder and felony
child abuse of the subject child's half-brother. The
circumstances blocking respondent father's performance
of his parental obligations demonstrate a substantial lack
of regard for his parental duties.
(Emphasis added.)
Appellant's convictions for murder, kidnapping, and child abuse, his
sentence of life without parole, and his failure to contact his child or perform
parental duties since 2012 overwhelmingly support the court's findings and
decision to terminate his parental rights. There is no reasonable probability that
the result would have been different absent the court's alleged consideration of
hearsay. Given that conclusion, appellant's claim that his counsel was ineffective
for failing to renew his objection to the hearsay also fails. State v. McFarland,
127 Wn.2d 322, 334-35, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)(defendant claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel must establish both deficient performance and a
9

No. 77391-7-1/10
reasonable probability that but for counsel's omission, the outcome would have
been different).
The respondents have filed a cost bill. The court exercises its discretion
not to impose appellate costs.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
%-QS),A1-rQs21	/	42	6-
10