Dependency Of K.l.s., 4/20/04, Dshs, Resp V. Kemontae Slaughter, App

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Dependency of
K.B-S., K.M.S., and K.LS.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES,
Respondent,
v.
KEMONTAE SLAUGHTER,
Appellant.
Appelwick, J. — Slaughter appeals
parental rights to her three children. 	Slaugh
No. 71566-6-1
(consolidated with No.
71567-4-1 and 71568-2-1) 	=
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION 	-^ 	u>r
S 	c>p
cr.
<JD
Ca2 	-••:•
FILED: January 26, 2015
rom the trial court's order terminating her
er argues that the court failed to consider
the children's stable placement with their maternal grandmother when 	it found 	(1)
parental 	unfitness, 	(2) 	continuation 	of 	the 	parent-child 	relationship 	diminished 	the
children's prospects for permanency, and (3) termination of the parental relationship
was in the children's best interests. 	Substantial evidence in the record supports the
court's findings. 	We affirm.
FACTS
Kemontae Slaughter is the mother of three children: 	K.L.S., a daughter born in
April 2004; K.M.S., a son born in November 2006; and K.B-S, a daughter born in March
2009. 	At the time of trial, the children were ages 9, 7, and 4. 	The youngest daughter,
K.B.-S., 	was 	diagnosed 	with 	autism 	spectrum 	disorder and 	requires 	occupational,
physical, and speech therapy and counseling. All three children have "high needs."

71566-6-1/2
In July 2010, the court entered an agreed order of dependency as to the mother.
The dispositional order required the 	mother to participate in various services. 	For
instance, the 	order required the 	mother to obtain a psychological 	evaluation with a
parenting 	component, 	obtain 	a 	drug 	and 	alcohol 	evaluation 	and 	follow treatment
recommendations, 	participate in weekly random urinalysis, and engage in individual
mental 	health 	counseling. 	The 	dependency 	order 	authorized 	placement with the
children's maternal grandmother, Francis Slaughter.
In 2012, 	more than 	two 	years 	into the 	dependency, 	the 	dependency court
ordered that the permanent plan for the children should be permanent legal custody or
adoption. 	To that end, Department of Social and Health Services (Department) home
study licenser Susan Large conducted a home study on behalf of the Department to
determine the suitability of permanent placement with the grandmother. 	An approved
home study is a requirement for adoption.
Large's investigation led her to conclude that placement with the grandmother
was not a viable long-term placement option for the children despite the grandmother's
dedication to the children, her motivation, and the emotional stability she had provided.
Large had concerns about the grandmother's physical and mental health and the strain
she was suffering on both fronts in order to meet the needs of the three children. 	The
grandmother had severe arthritis in her hips and back that left her "incapacitated on
many days." 	The grandmother was in need of hip replacement surgery, but could not
have the procedure until she quit smoking. 	The grandmother's doctor was concerned
that she was not eating or sleeping well, was losing weight, and was "highly stressed
and 	overwhelmed." 	According 	to 	the 	grandmother's 	doctor, 	the 	grandmother's

71566-6-1/3
deteriorating mental health was even more critical than her physical health problems.
The doctor believed that the grandmother's depression and anxiety were overwhelming
her ability to take care of herself. 	The grandmother's longtime therapist told Large that
the grandmother had not been able to attend regular sessions for several months due to
lack of child care.
Large 	also determined 	that the grandmother "really did 	not 	have a 	support
system" 	and 	was financially 	insecure. 	In terms of parenting, 	Large believed that
although the grandmother "was trying 	hard to be engaged 	with 	the children," the
professionals who worked 	with 	the 	family 	reported, and 	the 	grandmother herself
confirmed, that she was "quite overwhelmed." 	Large described the grandmother as
"falling apart around the edges" and predicted that it was "quickly coming to the point
where she was falling apart completely."
The Department did not officially deny the home study. 	Instead, when it became
apparent the Department would not approve the study, the Department allowed the
grandmother to withdraw the application.
In October 2012, the Department filed a motion to remove the children from the
grandmother's home. 	The court denied the motion, but ordered that the mother could
have no contact with the children unless supervised by the Department and ordered the
grandmother to participate in a number of services.
In November 2012, the Department filed a petition to terminate parental rights.1
The Department contended that the mother had not made progress toward correcting
1 The Department's petition also sought to terminate the rights of the fathers of
the three children. 	The parental rights of the fathers of the two youngest children were
terminated prior to trial. 	Following trial, the court terminated the parental rights of the

71566-6-1/4
her 	parental deficiencies. 	The 	Department alleged 	that 	the 	mother did not follow
through 	with 	any 	of 	the 	recommendations 	for 	mental 	health 	or 	substance 	abuse
treatment. 	The Department also pointed out that the treatment provider who performed
a 	psychological evaluation of the mother did 	not recommend 	reunification, 	and the
mother had not been visiting the children.
In orders entered in July 2012 and January 2013, the court found that the mother
was not 	regularly visiting the children. 	In May 2013, 	a court order suspended the
mother's visits due to concerns about the safety of the children.
The termination trial began on July 31, 2013. 	On the third day of trial, the court
appointed special advocate (CASA) requested a continuance of the trial, in order to
obtain a home study for the grandmother which, if supportive, would allow the CASA to
file a petition for guardianship on behalf of the grandmother. 	The CASA noted that the
grandmother recently had hip replacement surgery that addressed some of the previous
concerns about her physical abilities. The court granted the motion to continue the trial.
The 	CASA 	program 	arranged 	for 	psychiatric 	nurse 	practitioner, 	Dr. Joanne
Solchany, to conduct a new home study to assess placement with the grandmother. 	As
with the Department-initiated study, Dr. Solchany did not recommend the grandmother
as a 	permanent, 	long-term 	placement for the children. 	Dr. Solchany reached this
determination based on concerns about the grandmother's ability to meet the needs of
the children on her own and to effectively access and utilize the resources available to
her. 	Dr. Solchany observed that the grandmother had no "backup plan" and that her
father of the eldest child. 	This appeal challenges only the termination of the parental
rights of the mother.

71566-6-1/5
family 	members 	appeared 	to 	have 	"burnt 	out 	on 	supporting 	her." 	Dr. 	Solchany
recognized the bond between the grandmother and children and the positive aspects of
the 	relationship 	and 	initially 	hoped 	that 	supportive 	services 	could 	assist with the
"practicality and pragmatics" of taking care of the children and allow them to remain in
the grandmother's care. 	However, she ultimately determined that everything she could
think of that might help had already been tried without success.
The trial resumed on November 25. 	Due to the outcome of the independent
home study, the CASA did not file a guardianship petition on behalf of the grandmother.
The trial took place over 12 days. 	The court considered the testimony of more
than 	20 	witnesses 	including 	social 	workers, 	mental 	health 	and 	substance 	abuse
treatment providers, clinical psychologists, the grandmother, and the CASA, among
others. 	Witnesses described the mother's parental deficiencies, including mental health
issues, lack of ability to control anger, untreated drug and alcohol issues, poor decision
making, and lack of parenting skills. 	Mental health professionals diagnosed the mother
with 	various 	mental 	health 	issues 	including 	cognitive 	disorder, 	mood 	disorder,
posttraumatic stress disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, and personality disorder
with 	borderline, 	narcissistic, 	and 	antisocial 	traits. 	Witnesses 	also 	described 	the
mother's lack of compliance with treatment, difficulty in managing relationships, and
controlling her anger.
The CASA did not agree with the results of Dr. Solchany's home study and
expressed the opinion that the children should remain in the grandmother's care. The
grandmother was the only witness to testify that the mother was currently able to parent
the children and recommend reunification. 	The mother did not testify or appear at trial.

71566-6-1/6
At the conclusion of the trial, the court determined that the mother had numerous
parental 	deficiencies 	and 	there 	was 	little 	likelihood 	those 	deficiencies 	would 	be
remedied in the near future. 	The court also determined that continuation of the parent-
child relationship diminished the children's prospects for early integration into a stable
and permanent home and that termination was in the best interests of the children.
Based on the testimony of Large and Dr. Solchany, the court specifically found that
remaining in the grandmother's care was not in the children's long-term best interests
and 	that 	this 	fact 	weighed 	in favor 	of 	termination. 	The 	court 	entered 	an 	order
terminating the mother's parental rights. 	The mother appeals.
DISCUSSION
"[A] 	parent 	has 	a 	constitutional 	due 	process 	right 	not 	to 	have 	his 	or 	her
relationship with a natural child terminated in the absence of a trial court finding of fact
that he or she is currently unfit to parent the child." 	In re Welfare of A.B.. 168 Wn.2d
908, 	920, 	232 	P.3d 	1104 	(2010). 	Moreover, 	to 	terminate 	parental 	rights, 	the
Department must also first prove the six elements of RCW 13.34.180 by clear, cogent,
and convincing evidence. 	In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568, 576-77, 257
P.3d 522 (2011). 	Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact
in issue is shown by the evidence to be highly probable. 	In re Dependency of K.R., 128
Wn.2d 129, 141, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995). 	The six requirements for terminating a parent
child relationship are:
(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;

71566-6-1/7
(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).
The 	Department then 	must prove by a 	preponderance of the evidence that
termination of parental rights is in the child's best interests. 	RCW 13.34.190(1 )(b); A.B..
168Wn.2dat911.
"Where the trial court has weighed the evidence, review is limited to ascertaining
whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and if so, whether
the findings support the conclusions of law and the judgment." 	In re Dependency of
P.P., 58 Wn. App. 18, 25, 792 P.2d 159 (1990). 	Substantial evidence is evidence that
is in sufficient quantity to persuade a fair-minded and rational person of the truth of the
declared premise. 	In re Welfare of T.B.. 150 Wn. App. 599, 607, 209 P.3d 497 (2009).
The determination of whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence
"must be made in light of the degree of proof required." 	P.P., 58 Wn. App. at 25.
Where the proof required is clear and convincing, "the question on appeal is whether
there is substantial evidence to support the findings in light of the highly probable test."

71566-6-1/8
id. 	We defer to the trial court's credibility determinations when 	reviewing an order
terminating parental rights. 	T.B.. 150 Wn. App. at 607.
I. 	Parental Unfitness
The mother expressly concedes that the statutory factors RCW 13.34.180(a), (b),
(c), (d) and (e) were met. 	She claims, however, that in light of her decision to allow her
mother, a fit custodian, to temporarily raise her children, there was insufficient evidence
to establish her current parental unfitness.
As an initial matter, the placement of the children with the maternal grandmother
was the result of the court's dispositional order in 2010 which placed the children in
dependency status. 	Although it was an agreed order, placement of the children with the
grandmother was not solely the result of the mother's decision.
And, 	leaving 	aside the question 	of the grandmother's fitness, 	the fitness 	or
suitability 	of 	the 	children's 	placement 	outside 	the 	home 	is 	not 	relevant 	to 	the
determination of whether the parent is fit at the time of the termination trial. 	Although
the mother challenges the court's conclusion that she is "currently unfit to parent" the
three children, numerous unchallenged factual findings amply support the conclusion.
For example, the court found as follows:
2.24 There 	is 	little likelihood that conditions will 	be 	remedied 	by 	Ms.
Slaughter so that the children can be returned to her in the near future.
Ms. Slaughter has failed to substantially improve her parental deficiencies
within 	twelve 	months 	following 	the 	entry 	of 	the 	dispositional 	order
therefore the 	rebuttable 	presumption 	that there 	is 	little likelihood 	that
conditions will be remedied so that the children can be returned in the
near future 	applies 	and 	that 	presumption 	was 	not 	overcome 	by 	the
mother.
2.25 Dr. O' Leary opined that Ms. Slaughter has a number of parental
deficiencies 	including 	a 	lack 	of 	ability 	to 	provide 	a 	consistent 	and

71566-6-1/9
adequately organized home environment that provides predictability. 	She
would not be able to provide the necessary routine schedules for her high
needs children. 	Her cognitive problems are a barrier to learning more
appropriate parenting techniques.
2.26 Dr. O'Leary observed Ms. Slaughter presenting as aloof and with little
nurture towards her children.
2.27 Dr. O'Leary testified that Ms. Slaughter would need to participate in
mental 	health treatment for a 	minimum 	of one and 	a 	half years and
consistently be on 	psychiatric medications for three years 	in order to
address her mental health issues.
2.28 Evidence presented at trial was clear that the mother suffers from a
mood disorder and has significant cognitive impairment that affects her
development of parenting skills, yet the mother refuses to follow through
with mental health treatment to work on her mood disorder.
2.29 Ms. Slaughter struggles with uncontrollable anger. 	This anger has
been directed at the children, employees at Childhaven, family members,
social workers, treatment providers, and others with whom she comes into
contact. 	Her angry outbursts witnessed by those who tried to work with
Ms. Slaughter caused fear for the safety of her children.
2.30 	Ms. 	Slaughter 	was 	ordered 	to 	move 	out 	of 	the 	maternal
grandmother's home where the children were placed in order to protect
the children's safety.
The mother challenges only the following finding of fact:
CASA Sharon Green spent numerous hours working on the children's
case. 	She met frequently with 	the children. 	She appeared 	at court
hearings 	and 	Department 	planning 	meetings. 	Ms. 	Green 	provided
testimony in support of the above findings including her opinion that Ms.
Slaughter and [the father] are not capable of providing adequate care to
[the children] at this time.
The mother apparently contends that, because the CASA supported placement with the
grandmother and the CASA's view on the matter of future placement did not coincide
with the court's finding that the grandmother was not a suitable long-term placement,
the CASA's testimony did not support the "above" findings. 	But the "above" findings
include not only findings about future placement with the grandmother, but also the

71566-6-1/10
findings about the mother's fitness to parent and the ultimate finding that "remaining
with the mother... is not in the best interests of the children."
While the 	CASA expressed 	some 	ambivalence 	on 	the 	issue 	of termination,
recognizing that termination would ultimately result in the Department's ability to remove
the children from the grandmother's home, her testimony on the mother's current fitness
to parent was not equivocal. 	The CASA testified that the mother was not currently
capable 	of 	providing 	"adequate 	care" 	for 	the 	three 	children, 	not 	capable 	of
understanding and meeting their physical and emotional needs, and not able to "protect"
them or appropriately parent the children. 	The record supports the court's finding about
the CASA's testimony. 	And the findings as a whole support the court's conclusion that
the mother was currently not fit to parent the three children.
II. 	Diminishing Prospects
The mother contends that the court erred in finding that continued dependency
diminished the children's prospects for integration into a permanent and stable home.
Again, RCW 13.34.180 (1)(f) requires the Department to prove that continuation of the
parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration
into a stable and permanent home. 	The main focus of this statutory factor is the parent-
child relationship and whether it impedes the child's prospects for integration, not what
constitutes a stable and permanent home. 	The State does not have to prove that a
stable and permanent home is available at the time of termination. 	In re Dependency of
K.S.C.. 137Wn.2d918, 927, 976 P.2d 113(1999).
10

71566-6-1/11
The court made the following findings addressing this statutory factor:
2.48 The children were removed from Ms. Slaughter's home over three
years ago. 	The mother has had limited contact with the children by her
choice to not engage in services required to regain visitation and has not
substantially improved her parental deficiencies so that the children can
be returned to her residence within the near future.
2.49 	After 	more 	than 	three 	years 	in dependency 	status 	and 	limited
prospects 	for 	improving 	parental 	deficiencies, 	further 	delay 	for 	an
unspecified period of time clearly diminishes the children's prospects for
early integration into a stable and permanent home.
2.50 The children have prospects for adoption at the present time, which
includes a placement where all three might be able to live together.
The mother challenges findings 2.49 and 2.50. 	She points out that the children
were stable while living with the grandmother and that no prospective adoptive family
had yet to meet the children. 	Therefore, the mother contends the Department failed to
prove that continuation 	of the 	parent 	and 	child 	relationship 	clearly diminished 	the
children's prospects for early integration.
The social worker assigned to the children's case at the time of trial testified that
the 	children 	had 	"prospects for 	adoption." 	She 	said 	there 	were 	potential 	parties
interested in adopting the children in spite of the special needs, and that a "current
family" was interested 	in potentially adopting all three children. 	The social worker
conceded that no 	prospective family had met the children or made a "100 percent
commitment" to take all three. 	She explained that the Department was reluctant to
introduce a family to the children until the issue of termination was resolved and the
children were legally free for adoption. 	The testimony supports the court's finding that
the children have prospects for adoption.
11

71566-6-1/12
As to the claim that continued dependency did not undermine the children's
stability because their placement with the grandmother was stable, this court rejected a
similar argument in In re Dependency of A.V.D.. 62 Wn. App. 562, 569, 815 P.2d 277
(1991). 	In that case, the father also argued that the Department failed to prove that
continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminished 	his child's early
integration into a stable and permanent home because his child was placed with her
maternal grandmother with whom she had lived since birth, 	jd. 	The father conceded
that he was not currently able to care for his child and was only truly interested in
retaining visitation rights, 	jd. 	Nevertheless, 	he maintained that continuation of the
relationship would not disrupt the stability and permanency of the child's placement, jd.
This court disagreed and explained:
Although she is being cared for by a close relative, [the child] is still a
dependent child in foster care. 	As long as she is in foster care, her living
situation 	will 	by 	definition 	remain 	temporary. 	She 	will 	not 	have 	a
permanent home until her parents resume custody or their parental rights
are terminated and she is adopted. 	Thus, while [the father's] assertion
that 	[the 	child's] 	placement with 	her grandmother 	is 	a 	stable 	one 	is
accurate, 	it 	does 	not 	undercut 	the 	trial 	court's 	determination 	that
continuing his parental rights inhibits her ability to be integrated, as an
adopted child, into that home.
A.V.D.. 62 Wn. App. at 569-70.
As A.V.D. illustrates, a stable placement should not deprive a child of the benefit
of a legally permanent home. 	Here, the children had been living with their grandmother
for more than three years at the time of trial. 	But, the children's placement with the
grandmother, although stable, was not permanent. 	And the facts supporting this factor
are even more compelling 	here where it does 	not appear that the Department will
consider 	the 	grandmother 	as 	a 	prospective 	adoptive 	placement. 	Accordingly,
12

71566-6-1/13
substantial evidence supports the court's finding that continuation of the parent-child
relationship clearly diminishes the early integration of the children into a stable and
legally permanent home.
III. Children's Best Interests
The mother claims the Department failed to establish that termination of parental
rights was in the best interests of the children because of the "strong and positive"
bonds between both the children and grandmother and between her and the children.
This 	court 	affords 	a 	trial 	court 	broad 	discretion 	in 	making 	the 	"best 	interests"
determination, and its decision receives great deference on review. 	In re Walfare of
Young. 24 Wn. App. 	392, 395, 600 P.2d 1312 (1979). 	Whether termination is in a
child's best interests is based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
A.V.D.. 62 Wn .App. at 572. 	When a parent has failed to rehabilitate over a lengthy
dependency period, a court is fully justified in finding termination to be in a child's best
interests rather than 	leaving the child "'in the limbo of foster care for an 	indefinite
period'" while the parent seeks further rehabilitation. 	In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn.
App. 149, 167, 29 P.3d 1275 (2001) (quoting In re Dependency of A.W.. 53 Wn. App.
22, 33, 765 P.2d 307 (1988)).
Here, the court specifically found:
2.51 	The court has given 	careful consideration 	long 	and 	hard to 	the
question of whether termination is in the children's best interests and has
searched for the wisdom to and strength to do the right thing by [the
children] 	After 	this 	careful 	consideration 	this 	Court 	concludes 	that
remaining with the mother and in [the oldest daughter's] case also with her
father is not in the best interests of the children.
2.52 After hearing testimony from Dr. Solchany and DSHS Home Study
worker 	Suzanne 	Large, 	the 	Court 	has 	learned 	that 	maintaining 	the
13

71566-6-1/14
children in the care of Francis Slaughter, maternal grandmother, is not in
their best interests. This factor weighed in favor of granting termination.
2.53 Ms. Francis Slaughter has struggled to meet her own needs while
struggling to meet the high needs of the three children. 	For example, the
children were seven months late getting to the dentist, and [the youngest
daughter] who needs special shoes does not have them because they
were left in a storage unit that Ms. Francis Slaughter has not accessed by
the time of trial.
Based 	on 	these 	findings, 	the 	court 	concluded 	that 	termination 	of 	the 	parental
relationship with the mother was in the best interests of each of the three children.
The mother challenges findings 2.52 and 2.53, citing the testimony of several
witnesses, including the CASA, who addressed the benefits of the relationship between
the grandmother and children. 	She also cites the CASA's testimony that the two oldest
children stated a preference to reunite and live with their mother.
The court's findings do not refute or deny the relationship the children have with
their 	grandmother 	or 	mother. 	The 	preponderance 	of 	the 	evidence 	nevertheless
supports the trial court's finding that termination was in the children's best interests.
The 	court's 	unchallenged 	findings 	demonstrate that the 	mother's 	untreated 	mental
health issues and uncontrollable anger prevented her from parenting her children. 	She
does not dispute the trial court's findings that these deficiencies further prevented her
from meeting her children's needs and rendered her incapable of providing adequate
care for the children. 	Ample testimony, including the CASA's testimony, supports the
findings and they are verities on appeal.
With respect to whether the children should remain with the grandmother in the
future, the court's findings are in accordance with the opinions expressed by both Large
and 	Dr. Solchany. 	Both 	witnesses 	concluded 	that, 	for 	a 	variety 	of 	reasons, 	the
14

71566-6-1/15
grandmother is unable to adequately meet the substantial needs of the children. 	It is
not the role of this court on appeal to reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the
witnesses. 	See In re Welfare of C.B., 134 Wn. App. 942, 953, 143 P.3d 846 (2006).
Despite the CASA's contrary opinion, the evidence in the record supports the court's
determination that long-term placement with the grandmother is not in the children's
best interests. 	As the court noted, this finding weighed in favor of termination because
the children would be legally free for adoption as a result of termination and would likely
be removed from the grandmother's care in favor of a long-term adoptive home.
Substantial 	evidence 	supports 	the 	trial 	court's 	decision 	that 	termination 	of
parental rights is in the best interests of the children. 	Accordingly, we affirm the court's
order.
WE CONCUR:
T
15