Welfare Of N.a. And Z.b.; E.a., And O.a., Appellants V. Dshs, Respondent

1LED
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISMA 11
2013 APR -2 AM S: 49
SATE OF VIASHINGfi0N
BY—
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In re the Welfare of: No. 43048 -7 -	II
N.A.,10/23/	08
In re the Welfare of:
Z.B.,02/18/	07
Consolidated with:
No. 43058-4-	11
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JOHANSON, A.C.	J. —	E.A.appeals the trial court's termination of her parental rights. She
correctly argues that insufficient evidence supports the trial court's finding that continuation of
her parent -child relationship interferes with N.A. and Z.B.'	s early integration into a stable and
permanent home. Accordingly, we reverse.
FACTS
E.A. is the mother of Z.B and N.A. Both children were placed in foster care in 2010 and
found dependent on the State on June 14, 2010. As the assigned social worker, Ashley Mangum
was responsible for finding a placement for the children and setting up services for the parents.
The trial court held permanency hearings to decide placement for the children in December 2010
and November 2011. Mangum asked E.A.to refer to her any relatives who might be a placement

No. 43048 -7 -	II/
No. 43058 -4 -	II
resource for the children. E.A.failed to successfully complete the court-ordered services, except
she did complete a 28 -day inpatient drug treatment program at Sea -Mar.
E.A.'	s termination trial began in January 2012, while Mangum was still searching for a
permanent placement for the children. At the time, Mangum was considering permanent
placement with either E.A.'	s aunt or the girls' current foster parents. Mangum testified that it
would be best for the children to be adopted because the girls had been in foster care for 20
months and had bonded together. She explained that E.A.'	s lack of stability and emotion control
and inability to make good decisions would not make her a safe parent for the girls.
But, Mangum did not think the girls were prepared for E.A.'	s rights to be terminated.
Mangum explained that E.A. had consistently shown up for visits, and the girls seemed bonded
with E.A, recognized E.A. as their mother, sought her attention, responded to her, and looked
forward to her visits. Mangum recommended continued hands -on parenting programs and also
explained that she had investigated E.A.'	s maternal grandmother as a placement, and was still in
the process of gathering background information about E.A.'	s aunt.
At trial, parenting coach LaShanda Green testified that E.A. engaged with the girls at an
appropriate level for their age and she did not have safety concerns, but that E.A. was unable to
control her anger at times and was very reactionary. E.A.'	s mother testified to her belief that
E.A. took good care of the girls. Last, the guardian ad litem testified that it would be in the
children's best interest to terminate E.A.'	s parental rights because the girls had already been
dependent for 21 months.
During closing arguments, the State argued:
0)

No. 43048 -7 -	II/
No. 43058 -4 -	II
Continuation of the parent /child relationship. The girls are placed
together. They're in a home that is willing to adopt them. There's also some
relatives that have come,forward. Ms. Mangum has testified that those relatives
who did come forward she's looked into. Right now there isn't a viable relative,
that perhaps Ms. Carter might pan out, I don't know. But clearly, the parent /child
relationship prevents [Z.B.]and [N.A.]	from moving forward and being integrated
into their home.
3 Verbatim Transcript of Proceedings (VTP) at 277. In response, E.A. argued that it was too
early to grant the request to terminate parental rights, that she had engaged in some services and
was willing to complete them, and that the State had not fully explored relative placement
options.
The court terminated E.A.'	s rights, specifically finding E.A.to be an unfit parent for N.A.
and Z.B. Orally, the court found that the State satisfied factors "(d)"	and "(e)"	of RCW
13.	34.	180(1)	but it did not address factor "(f)."	The court entered a written finding that
continuance of the parent -child relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early
integration into a stable and permanent home." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 74. The court was
especially concerned that E.A.did not take parenting feedback well, that she was mean, and that
she had issues controlling anger. The court then found that because E.A. did not make progress
in the 12 months prior, it saw little likelihood that she would learn how to parent in a timely
manner. E.A.appeals.
ANALYSIS
E.A. appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental rights, arguing that the court
erred because the State did not prove that continuation of her parental relationship would
1
The trial court did not expressly reference this statute by number, but it is apparent from the
record.
3

No. 43048 -7 -	II/
No. 43058 -4 -	II
diminish her children's prospects for early integration into a permanent and stable home. She
argues that there is no evidence that E.A.'	s relationship with her daughters would interfere with
their stability because (1)E.A.has consistently visited her daughters and the girls look forward
to the visits, (2)Mangum was still investigating placements for the girls, and (3)the girls are not
prepared for the separation.
The State responds, relying on In re Dependency ofJ.C.,to argue that DSHS did not have
to demonstrate that a relationship with E.A.will diminish the girls' prospects of early integration
into a stable home because it adequately demonstrated that there is little likelihood that
conditions can be remedied so the children can return to the parent in the foreseeable future. 130
Wn.2d 418, 427, 924 P.2d 21 ( 1996). The State asserts that when E.A. failed to appeal the
finding that there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied in the future, she conceded
this fact. In re Dependency ofK.D.	S.	tells us that E.A. is correct. K.	D.	S.,Wn.2d , 294
P.3d 695 (2013).
A. Standard of Review
Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the custody and care of their children.
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982);In re
Dependency of K.N.	J.,	171 Wn.2d 568, 574, 257 P.3d 522 ( 2011). "The legislature has
prescribed a statutory scheme that balances the parents' liberty interest with the child's right to a
safe and healthy environment."K.	D.	S.,	294 P.3d at 699 (citing In re Welfare of -	4.B.,168 Wn.2d
908, 919, 232 P.3d 1104 (2010)).	In order for the State to terminate parental rights, it must prove
in

No. 43048 -7 -	I1/
No. 43058 -4 -	I1
the six elements in RCW 13.34.	180 by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. In re Welfare of
C.S.,168 Wn.2d 51, 55,225 P.3d 953 (2010);RCW 13.	34.	180(1)	and RCW 13.	34.	190(	1)(	a)(	i).
Evidence is clear, cogent, and convincing when the evidence shows that the fact in issue
is highly probable. In re Dependency of KR.,128 Wn.2d 129, 141, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995).The
court must then find by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the child's best
interest. K.	N.	J.,	171 Wn.2d at 576 -77;RCW 13.	34.	190(	1)(	b).	On appeal, deference is given to
the trial court that had the benefit of having the witnesses before it. In re Welfare ofAschauer,
93 Wn.2d 689, 695, 611 P.2d 1245 (1980). The trial court's findings must not be disturbed
unless clear, cogent, and convincing evidence does not exist in the record."K.R.,128 Wn.2d at
144.
B. Sufficiency of Evidence
The State must prove the following six factors to terminate parental rights: (a)the child
is dependent, (b)the court has entered a dispositional order, (c)the child has been removed from
the parent's custody for at least six months pursuant to a dependency finding, (d)all necessary
services which could correct the parental deficiencies have been offered, (e)there is little
likelihood that the parental condition can be remedied in the near future, and (f)	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)(	a) -(	f).
The State's sole argument is that if it satisfied its burden of proving RCW
13.	32.	180(	1)(	e),	it necessarily had proved RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	f).	This argument was recently
rejected by our Supreme Court.
M

No. 43048 -7 -	II/
No. 43058 -4 -	II
In K.	D.	S.,	the Supreme Court explained that the State must prove each element of RCW
13.	34.	180(1)	before a trial court may terminate parental rights under RCW 13.	34.	190(	1)(	a)(	i).
K.	D.	S.,	294 P.3d at 701. The court based its decision in part on In re K.	S.	C.,	decided three years
after J.C.,where, although RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	e)	was satisfied, it nonetheless analyzed whether
the State had proved the allegation codified in RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	f).	KS.C.,137 Wn.2d 918,
928, 976 P.2d 113 ( 1999);K.	D.	S.,	294 P.3d at 701. The Supreme Court reasoned that if a
finding under RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	f)	necessarily followed from a finding under RCW
13.	34.	180(	1)(	e),	they would not have needed to review this issue. K.	D.	S.,	294 P.3d at 701.
The Supreme . Court also noted that facts supporting a conclusion under RCW
13.	34.	180(	l)(	e)	may, but do not necessarily, support a conclusion under RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	f)
In J.C. , for example, the fact that the mother was unlikely to change behaviors that had
psychologically destabilizing effects on her children also supported a determination that
continuation of their relationship clearly diminished the likelihood that the children would be
emotionally and psychologically prepared to integrate into a stable and permanent home if and
when one became available. But the existence of overlapping facts does not relieve the State of
its burden of proving RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	f)	independently of RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	e).	And where
facts do not overlap, little reason exists to tie a finding under RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	f)	to a finding
under RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	e).	KD.S.,	294 P.3d at 701.
The Supreme Court in K.D.	S.also recognized that treating the two factors individually
also comports with the rules of statutory construction: "` [I]	t is a .fundamental principle of
statutory construction that courts must not construe statutes so as to nullify, void or render
n

No. 43048 -7 -	II/
No. 43058 -4 -	II
meaningless or superfluous any section or words' of the statute." K.	D.	S.,	294 P.3d at 701
quoting Taylor v. City ofRedmond, 89 Wn.2d 315, 319, 571 P.2d 1388 (1977)).	Accepting the
State's interpretation of J.C. renders RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	f)	superfluous because, under its view,
no showing needs to be made to prove RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	f)	as long as RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	e)	is
proved. K.	D.	S.,	294 P.3d at 701.
The Supreme Court in K.D.	S.held that the State must independently prove each element
in RCW 13.	34.	180(1)	before a trial court may order the termination of parental rights under
RCW 13.	34.	190(	1)(	a)(	i).	Evidence may support more than one element found within RCW
13.	34.	180(1).	But proof of the element codified in RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	e)	does not necessarily
prove the element codified in RCW 13.	34.	180(	1)(	f).	To terminate parental rights, the trial court
must find that the State has proved each of the six statutory elements..K.	D.	S.,	294 P.3d at 701.
Here, the State does not attempt to argue that there are sufficient facts to uphold the trial
court's finding that continuation of the parent -child relationship interferes with an early
integration into a stable and permanent home. .Instead, _	the State argues that it does not need to
prove factor (f)	if they proved factor (e).	In light of K.	D.	S.,	the State's argument fails.
We turn then to whether sufficient facts support factor (f).	We conclude that the State
failed to prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that maintaining a relationship with
E.A. would be detrimental to N.A. and Z.B.'	s early integration into a stable and permanent
home. There is very little evidence in the record describing E.A.'	s relationship with her children.
The testimony that exists supports a conclusion that the parent -child relationship was strong, and
not harmful in any way. Social worker Mangum testified that she did not think the girls were
7

No. 43048 -7 -	II/
No. 43058 -4 -	II
prepared for E.A.'	s rights to be terminated. Mangum explained that E.A. had consistently
showed up for the visits and the girls seemed bonded with E.A,recognized E.A. as their mother,
sought her attention, responded to her, and looked forward to her visits. In contrast, there was no
testimony that the children had a detrimental relationship with E.A. or that continuation of the
parent -child relationship would interfere with their early integration into a stable and permanent
home. Accordingly, insufficient evidence supports the trial court's finding that continuation of
the parent -child relationship interferes with the children's early integration into a permanent and
stable home.
Reversed.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2.	06.	040,it is so ordered.
Johanson, ,A.	C.	J._
We concur:
j orgen, J.