In Re Dep Of: V.k.f., Dob: 12/10/10; Galina Fraley, App. vs. Dshs, Resp.

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

In the Matter of the Dependency of )
V.K.F., ) No. 70700-1-I
D.O.B.: 12/10/10, )
) DIVISION ONE
A minor child. )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
GALINA FRALEY, )
) 3
Appellant, ) =
) =
Vv. ) "_
) We)
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) =
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND ) vo
HEALTH SERVICES, ) “
) FILED: June 9, 2014 cs
Respondent. )

TRICKEY, J. — Galina Fraley appeals from the trial court's dependency and
dispositional orders placing her daughter, V.K.F., in out-of-home care and
requiring supervised visitation during the dependency. We conclude that
substantial evidence supported the challenged findings of fact and that the trial
court properly exercised its broad discretion to ensure V.K.F.’s welfare. Finding
no error, we affirm.

FACTS

Mark and Galina Fraley married in July 2010.' Galina had four children

from a previous marriage who currently reside with their father.2. The couple’s

first child, V.K.F., was born on December 10, 2010.° V.K.F. is the subject of this

1 4 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 48, 53. For clarity, the parties will be referred to by
their first names.

2 4 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 12-13; CP at 181.

3 Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 180.

7)
we}
>
4
T tk
ct
aa
“s

yivaga

35

No. 70700-1-1/2
appeal.
Over the past several years, Child Protective Services (CPS) has received
numerous referrals of abuse or neglect concerning Galina's children.4 	Since
V.K.F.'s birth, CPS determined that three referrals were "founded."5 	The first
founded referral alleged severe dental neglect of one of V.K.F.'s half siblings and
unsanitary conditions of the home.6 	The second founded referral alleged that
domestic violence had taken place in December 2011, while V.K.F. was present.7
The third founded referral, made in December 2012, alleged neglect of Galina's
children.8 	That referral also alleged sexual abuse by Mark, but the Department
of Social and Health Services (Department) determined that this allegation was
unfounded.9 	The family was offered 	services on a voluntary 	basis following
referrals in 2010, 2011, and 2012.10
On October 25, 2012, Mark was arrested after physically assaulting Galina
at their home.11 	Whatcom 	County Deputy Terrance Brown responded to the
report of assault.12 	When he arrived at the home, Galina was there with her
brother and sister.13 Galina informed Deputy Brown that Mark pushed her down
4 3 RP at 92.
5 3 RP at 92-93. "'Founded' means the determination following an investigation by CPS
that based on available information it is more likely than not that child abuse or neglect
did occur." WAC 388-15-005.
6 3 RP at 93.
71 RP at 135-36; 3 RP at 93-94.
81 RPat142, 155; 3 RP at 94.
91 RPat143, 145; 3 RP at 94.
101 RPat151.
11 1 RP at 45; 2 RP at 66.
12 2 RP at 126, 128.
13 2 RP at 128-29.

No. 70700-1-1/3
to the floor and threatened to punch her.14 	He then pushed her against a piece
of furniture in the 	bedroom.15 	Deputy 	Brown 	observed 	injuries on 	Galina's
shoulder that he believed were consistent with her report of assault.16 All five of
Galina's children were home during the assault.17
That night, 	Galina signed a voluntary statement composed by Deputy
Brown.18 	The statement contained Galina's verbal narrative of the events that
had transpired that night.19 	It also indicated that in the previous three months,
Mark had pushed, hit, and threatened 	Galina.20 	According to the statement,
Mark had become increasingly abusive over the past three months.21 	By the
third 	month, 	he 	was 	abusing 	Galina 	every other 	day.22 	The 	statement
additionally described an incident of physical assault that occurred shortly before
October 25.23 All five of Galina's children witnessed this assault.24
As a result of the October 2012 assault, a no contact order was put in
place, prohibiting Mark from contacting Galina.25 	Galina and Mark separated,
and at the time of the dependency proceedings, they were not living together.26
On January 4, 2013, the Department filed a dependency petition as to
14 2 RP at 129.
15 2 RP at 129.
16 2 RP at 129.
171 RP at 55.
18 2 RP at 130; Exhibit (Ex.) 1.
19 2 RP at 130; Ex. 1.
201 RPat41; Ex. 1.
21 Ex. 1.
22 Ex. 1.
23 Ex. 1.
24 Ex. 1.
251 RP at 87-88; 3 RP at 120-21.
261 RPat119.

No. 70700-1-1/4
V.K.F.27 A dependency fact-finding hearing was held in April and May 2013.
At the hearing, Galina presented testimony describing the October 2012
assault.28 	Although Galina testified that she had invited her brother and sister
over earlier that night because she was worried for her safety, she denied that
she had ever been fearful of Mark.29 	She also denied an ongoing pattern of
domestic 	abuse 	by Mark.30 	Galina 	further 	denied 	most of the 	statements
included in the voluntary statement, claiming that prior to October of that year,
Mark had 	not abused 	her.31 	According to Galina's testimony, the voluntary
statement was based on her sister's exaggerated report to Deputy Brown.32
The 	Department 	offered 	the 	testimony 	of 	Dr. 	Walter 	Uhl, 	a 	clinical
psychologist.33 	Dr. Uhl conducted a psychological evaluation of Galina in April
2012.34 	He testified that during the evaluation, Galina depicted her father as a
domineering, harsh disciplinarian who beat Galina and her siblings when they
"acted out."35 	Galina also told Dr. Uhl that her former husband had physically
abused her.36
Bryan May, Mark's domestic violence treatment provider, testified that he
271 RP at 145, 147-48; CP at 6.
281 RP at 40.
291 RP at 42, 57.
301 RPat41.
31 1 RP at 41, 60-65, 68-69.
321 RP at 41-43.
33 2 RP at 82-83.
34 2 RP at 90-91.
35 2 RP at 93.
36 2 RP at 95.

No. 70700-1-1/5
performed an evaluation of Mark in March 2013.37 	May determined that there
was 	a 	high 	likelihood 	that 	Mark 	minimized 	the 	severity of the 	abuse 	he
perpetrated.38 	May also found that there was a high likelihood that Mark would
be abusive in the future without intervention.39 	At the time of the hearing, Mark
was seeking treatment from May and had completed 6 out of 32 sessions.40
On May 2, 2013, the trial court entered a dependency order, finding V.K.F.
dependent pursuant to RCW 13.34.030.41 	With regard to V.K.F.'s placement, the
court made the following challenged findings:
2.4 Placement:
It is currently contrary to the child's welfare to return home. 	The
child should be placed ... for the following reasons:
[Tjhere is no parent or guardian available to care for the
child. . ..
The child should be placed or remain in:
Relative placement with [V.K.F.'s maternal grandparents.].. .
2.5 Reasonable Efforts:
The 	health, 	safety, 	and 	welfare of the 	child 	cannot 	be
adequately protected at home.
4.6 Visitation:
The mother resides in placement's home. 	Mother's visits are
liberal[ly] 	supervised by the 	maternal grandmother or maternal
aunt. I42'
37 3 RP at 52.
38 3 RP at 58.
39 3 RP at 58.
40 3 RP at 60.
41 CP at 97, 99.
42 CP at 99, 100, 105.

No. 70700-1-1/6
On May 9, 2013, following a dispositional hearing, the trial court entered a
dispositional order on dependency.43 The trial court placed V.K.F. in out-of-home
care 	with 	her 	maternal 	grandmother 	and 	required 	that 	Galina's 	visits 	be
supervised 	by V.K.F.'s 	maternal grandmother or aunt.44 	The 	court made
challenged factual findings as to placement, which are nearly identical to the
contested findings set forth in the dependency order.45
On May 30, 2013, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of
law.46 The court made the following relevant uncontested findings:
6. Galina Fraley has been the victim of recurrent domestic violence
perpetrated on her by her father, her former husband, and Mark
Fraley.
8. The testimony that the 	parents 	have 	not had 	a 	history 	of
domestic 	violence 	between 	them, 	where 	Mr. 	Fraley 	is 	the
perpetrator and 	Ms. 	Fraley 	is the 	victim, 	is not credible; 	the
evidence and testimony provided by witnesses leads the court to
believe that domestic violence has been a recurrent issue between
the parents.
9. The child has been exposed to the father's domestic violence
perpetrated upon the mother.
11. The father 	is currently in treatment as a domestic violence
abuser but that treatment is not complete. 	It is highly likely that the
father 	will 	continue 	to 	perpetrate 	domestic 	violence 	without
continued treatment and court intervention.
12. The mother has been physically abused by her own father, the
maternal grandfather. 	The last time this occurred was almost 14
43 CP at 171.
44 CP at 174.
45 CP at 97, 99, 100, 105.
46 CP at 180.

No. 70700-1-1/7
years ago.
16. The court is concerned by what appears to be a 	pattern of
denying 	domestic 	violence 	by 	the 	parents. 	Neither 	parent 	is
presently 	capable 	of 	safely 	parenting 	the 	child 	without 	court
supervision: 	At this time, the court is not confident that if domestic
violence occurred 	prospectively, 	[the] mother would 	do 	anything
about it. 	At this time the court is not confident that the parents
would follow through with domestic violence perpetrator and victim
services prospectively without the court supervision involved in a
dependency. 	The parents need to follow through with services to
help them prevent domestic violence prospectively.
17. Given the dynamics present in the family history, the risks to the
child's 	health, 	safety, 	and 	welfare 	indicate 	that 	comprehensive
parenting education are [sic] needed in order for the mother and
father to parent safely.[47]
The trial court also made the contested finding that "[t]he mother has
mental health diagnoses that negatively impact her ability to parent, especially
her ability to be alert to the child's needs and to be physically protective of the
child."48
Galina appeals.
ANALYSIS
Galina urges this court to reverse the dispositional order, contending that
the trial court abused its discretion by placing V.K.F. in out-of-home care and
requiring that Galina's visitation with V.K.F. be supervised. 	We disagree. 	The
trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and its decision was
reasonable to ensure V.K.F.'s health, safety, and welfare.
47 CP at 181-82.
48 CP at 181.

No. 70700-1-1/8
When determining an appropriate placement, the best interests of the
child are of paramount concern. 	In re Dependency of R.W., 143 Wn. 	App. 219,
223, 177 P.3d 186 (2008) (citing 	RCW 13.34.020). Thus, "[although parents
have a fundamental liberty and privacy interest in the care and custody of their
children, a trial court should 	not allow the rights of the 	biological parents to
override 	a 	child's 	best 	interests 	when 	determining 	placement 	under 	the
dependency statute." 	R.W.. 143 Wn. App. at 223-24 (citing RCW 13.34.020; jn
re Dependency of J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d 1, 8, 12, 863 P.2d 1344 (1993)).
After a court finds a child to be dependent, it must enter an order of
disposition. 	RCW 	13.34.130. 	In 	this order, 	the 	court may order the child
removed from the home "if the court finds that reasonable efforts have been
made to . . . eliminate the need for removal . . . unless the health, safety, and
welfare 	of the child 	cannot be protected 	adequately 	in 	the 	home." 	RCW
13.34.130(3).
"The trial court has broad discretion and is allowed considerable flexibility
to receive and evaluate all relevant evidence to reach a decision recognizing
both the welfare of the child and the parents' rights." 	R.W.. 143 Wn. App. at 223
(citing In re the Welfare of B.D.F., 126 Wn. App. 562, 574, 109 P.3d 464 (2005)).
Accordingly, a trial court's placement decision in a dependency proceeding is
discretionary 	and 	will 	be 	overturned 	only 	upon 	a showing 	of an 	abuse 	of
discretion. 	In re Dependency of A.C.. 74 Wn. App. 271, 275, 873 P.2d 535
(1994). 	A trial 	court 	abuses 	its 	discretion 	when 	its 	decision 	is 	manifestly
8

No. 70700-1-1/9
unreasonable or based on untenable grounds. 	State v. Lormor, 172 Wn.2d 85,
94, 257 P.3d 624 (2011).
Galina asserts that the record does not support the trial court's findings
that "[i]t is currently contrary to the child's welfare to return home," and that "[t]he
health, safety, and welfare of the child cannot be adequately protected in the
home."49 	But ample evidence established that V.K.F.'s welfare would not be
protected in Galina's care. 	Thus, the trial court's decision to order out-of-home
placement and supervised visitation was warranted.
In evaluating a claim of insufficiency of the evidence in a dependency
proceeding, we determine whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's
findings 	of fact and whether those findings 	of fact support the trial 	court's
conclusions of law. 	In re Dependency of CM., 118 Wn. App. 643, 649, 78 P.3d
191 (2003). 	Evidence is substantial if, viewed in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party, a rational trier of fact could find the fact by a preponderance of
the evidence. 	In re Dependency of E.L.F.. 117 Wn. App. 241, 245, 70 P.3d 163
(2003). 	We do not reweigh the evidence or evaluate witness credibility. 	In re
Welfare of C.B., 134 Wn. App. 942, 953, 143 P.3d 846 (2006).
Here, 	the 	trial 	court's 	decision 	to 	order 	out-of-home 	placement 	and
supervised visitation 	was 	primarily 	based 	on V.K.F.'s 	exposure to domestic
violence and its resulting risks to her welfare.50 	The court's undisputed findings
establish that domestic violence has been a recurring problem between Mark and
49 CP at 99, 100; 172-73.
50 See CP at 181-82; 4 RP at 47-52, 103.

No. 70700-1-1/10
Galina and that V.K.F. has been exposed to it.51 	It is also undisputed that the
parents have denied the existence of a pattern of domestic violence.52 	As a
result, if an incident of domestic violence were to occur prospectively, Galina may
not take action to protect V.K.F.53 	Significantly, the court made the unchallenged
finding that "the 	risks to the child's 	health, 	safety, 	and 	welfare indicate that
comprehensive parenting education are [sic] needed in order for the mother and
father to parent safely."54 Thus, as the court found, the parents were not capable
of safely parenting V.K.F. without court supervision.55 	These undisputed facts,
treated as verities on appeal, sufficiently establish that V.K.F.'s welfare would be
jeopardized if V.K.F. were placed in Galina's care. 	See In re Interest of J.F., 109
Wn. App. 718, 722, 37 P.3d 1227 (2001).
Furthermore, 	testimony 	adduced 	at 	the 	hearing 	supported 	these
undisputed findings, as well as the trial court's finding that V.K.F.'s health, safety,
and welfare would not be protected if placed in Galina's care. 	First, abundant
evidence indicated a pattern of domestic violence. 	In addition to the physical
assault 	perpetrated 	by Mark in October 	2012, 	Galina's 	voluntary statement
reported three months of increasing physical abuse occurring before the October
incident. 	Moreover, May testified that there was verbal violence, emotional
violence, intimidation, and actual physical abuse between Mark and Galina.56 	He
51 CP at 181.
52 CP at 181.
53 CP at 181-82.
54 CP at 182.
55 CP at 181-82.
56 3 RP at 58.
10

No. 70700-1-1/11
also determined that there was a high likelihood that Mark would be abusive in
the future without intervention.57 	Further, CPS had concluded that a previous
allegation of assault was founded in 2011. 	Finally, a staff member at a domestic
violence clinic testified that Galina sought her assistance on October 23, 2012 to
file a protection order.58
Second, ample evidence demonstrated Galina's refusal to acknowledge
the severity of abuse by Mark. 	Although Galina signed the voluntary statement
that described previous physical assaults by Mark, at the hearing, she repeatedly
denied the statements contained therein. 	She also denied that any acts of
domestic violence took 	place 	before 	the 	October 2012 	incident and 	denied
ongoing domestic violence. 	Further, Galina testified that she had never been
fearful of Mark, 	but she also testified that she had invited her siblings to her
house before Mark returned home on October 25 because she was concerned
for her safety.59
The CPS social workers assigned to the case also provided testimony
regarding Galina's denial of domestic violence and the danger this 	posed on
V.K.F. Judy Gischer testified that in 2012, prior to the October incident, she met
with 	Mark and Galina after she received a domestic violence referral.60 	She
testified that she offered them domestic violence services but they refused to
57 3 RP at 58.
58 4 RP at 16, 22.
591 RP at 42, 57.
60 2 RP at 57.
11

No. 70700-1-1/12
participate in these services.61 	Julie Turner testified that Galina did not perceive
Mark 	as 	a 	threat 	to 	her 	children despite 	the 	domestic 	violence.62 	Turner
expressed concern that the continuing incidents of domestic violence posed a
threat to Galina's children and that Galina was not protective of them.63
Angela Paull also testified that when she initially interviewed Galina about
the domestic violence issue, Galina denied any history of it but later admitted that
Mark was abusive.64 	Paull testified that she was concerned that Galina was
putting 	herself 	in 	danger 	by continuing 	her 	relationship 	with 	Mark.65 	Paull
believed that Galina's failure to recognize the danger posed by Mark placed
V.K.F. in danger.66
Finally, at the hearing, May and Paull explained the negative effects that
exposure to domestic violence has on a child. 	May opined that a child who
witnesses abuse is likely to become an abuser or a victim when he or she grows
up.67 	Paull testified that exposure to domestic violence poses substantial risks to
children.68 	According to her testimony, domestic violence negatively impacts all
aspects of a child's development: 	physical, emotional, psychological, behavioral,
and social.69 	Further, children affected by domestic violence have more health
61 2 RP at 58-59.
621 RP at 145.
631 RPat145.
64 3 RP 113.
65 3 RP at 117.
66 3 RP at 117
67 3 RP at 57.
68 3 RP at 86, 111.
69 3 RP at 111.
12

No. 70700-1-1/13
and behavioral issues than the average child.70 	Paull believed that V.K.F. was at
risk of these problems as a result of the domestic violence that occurs between
her parents.71 	This was particularly true in light of the fact that V.K.F. had been
present for at least two incidents of domestic violence.72 	Finally, because of
these risks, Paull believed that it was contrary to V.K.F.'s health, safety, and
welfare to return home to either parent at that time.73
In sum, 	the 	record 	demonstrates that there 	is 	a 	pattern 	of domestic
violence, that Galina and Mark fail to acknowledge its severity, and exposure to
the domestic violence poses a risk to Galina's welfare. 	Thus, the court's findings
that placement with 	Galina was contrary to V.K.F.'s welfare was 	more than
adequately reflected in the record. 	These findings also supported the court's
decision to order supervised 	visitation to protect V.K.F.'s health, safety, and
welfare.
Nevertheless, Galina contends that no evidence supported the trial court's
finding that "[t]he mother has mental health diagnoses that negatively impact her
ability to parent, especially her ability to be alert to the child's needs and to be
physically protective of the child."74 We disagree.
The court's uncontroverted findings, 	amply supported by the evidence,
established that Galina's long-standing suffering of domestic violence and her
70 3 RP at 111.
71 3 RP at 111.
72 3 RP at 111.
73 3 RP at 125.
74 CP at 181.
13

No. 70700-1-1/14
denial of such abuse hindered her ability to adequately parent V.K.F.75 	Because
of the emotional and physical abuse she suffered during her childhood and in her
marital 	relationships, 	Dr. 	Uhl 	diagnosed 	Galina 	with 	post-traumatic 	stress
disorder.76 	Dr. Uhl also diagnosed Galina with major depressive disorder with
catatonic features as well as dissociative fugue.77 	As Dr. Uhl explained in his
testimony, "dissociative fugue" is where "a person who has blackouts for specific
periods of time where they may function for a certain period of time but not recall
functioning at all."78 	Given this evidence and the findings previously discussed,
the court properly found that Galina's mental illness would negatively impact her
ability to parent.
Galina argues that the trial 	court could have imposed less 	restrictive
measures to protect V.K.F. from domestic violence. 	But Galina was residing at
V.K.F.'s grandparents at the time of the hearing and the court imposed 	no
temporal restrictions on her contact with her daughter. 	Furthermore, Galina's
visitations were to be "liberal[ly] supervised."79 	These limitations were generous
considering the court's finding that Galina was not capable of safely parenting
V.K.F.
In light of the evidence concerning the significant risks V.K.F. would face
through continued exposure to domestic violence, the trial court's placement
decision was in V.K.F.'s best interest. 	The trial court did not err.
75 CP at 181; 1 RP at 31, 90.
76 2 RP at 96-97.
77 2 RP at 97.
78 2 RP at 98.
79 CP at 105.
14

No. 70700-1-1 / 15
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
Ja, A
15