§59.04 Requirements for Termination of Parental Rights (RCW 13.34.180, .190)

JurisdictionWashington

§ 59.04 REQUIREMENTS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS (RCW 13.34.180, .190)

Chapter 13.34 RCW provides the process for terminating parental rights. The statutory requirements are discussed below.

[1] Filing the Petition (RCW 13.34.132)


Chapter 13.34 RCW creates a two-step process for terminating parental rights. First, [the State] must show that it satisfied its statutory obligations under RCW 13.34.180(1). Second, [under RCW 13.34.190 the State] must show that termination of parental rights would be in the best interests of the child. In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908, 911-12, 232 P.3d 1104 (2010); RCW 13.34.190. The first step focuses on the adequacy of the parents, while the second step focuses on the child's best interests, which must be proven by only a preponderance of the evidence. Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d at 911.

In re Parental Rights to D.J.S., 12 Wn. App. 2d 1, 456 P.3d 820 (2020); see also In re Parental Rights to D.H., 195 Wn.2d 710, 464 P.3d 215 (2020).

RCW 13.34.132 discusses the petition's requirements. RCW 13.34.180 and .190 list the elements that must be proven to terminate parental rights through an action under Chapter 13.34 RCW. With the exception of a child who has been abandoned, termination of parental rights under this chapter may be accomplished only after the child has been found to be dependent in a State of Washington dependency proceeding. Following the finding of dependency, any party to that dependency proceeding may file a termination petition. Usually the petition is filed by DSHS or by another supervising agency. Generally speaking, the child will also need to have been dependent for at least six months at the time that parental rights are being terminated. RCW 13.34.180(1)(c).

The termination petition is a new action, requiring original service of process, even in those counties where the termination petition is filed under the dependency cause number. RCW 13.34.070, .180(6). If necessary, publication of notice is authorized by statute. RCW 13.34.080. One parent's rights may be terminated with no effect on the rights of the other parent, although this is relatively rare. RCW 13.34.200(1).

Along with the petition, a "notice of rights" must also be served on the parent, guardian, or legal custodian, in "substantially" the form/language set forth in RCW 13.24.180(6).

[2] Six Statutory Elements (RCW 13.34.180)

RCW 13.34.180 and .190 list the elements that must be proven to terminate parental rights. With the exception of a child who has been abandoned, termination of parental rights may be accomplished under Chapter 13.34 RCW only after the child has been found to be dependent. Once there has been a finding of dependency, any party to the dependency action may file a termination petition.

The statutory elements under RCW 13.34.180(1) must each be proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. In re Welfare of D.E., 196 Wn.2d 92, 469 P.3d 1163 (2020); RCW 13.24.190(1)(a)(i). This standard is satisfied when a court determines that the ultimate facts are shown to be "highly probable." These statutory elements are:


(a) That the child has been found to be a dependent child;
(b) That the court has entered a dispositional order . . . ;
(c) That the child has 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 . . . ;
(f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home.

Parental Rights to D.J.S., 12 Wn. App. 2d at 20 (quoting RCW 13.34.180(1)).

In addition, it must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. RCW 13.34.190(2); see also Parental Rights to D.H., 195 Wn.2d 710; In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. 149, 29 P.3d 1275 (2001); In re Welfare of H.S., 94 Wn. App. 511, 973 P.2d 474, review denied, 138 Wn.2d 1019 (1999), and cert. denied sub nom. Swenson v. Wash. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 529 U.S. 1108 (2000); In re Dependency of A.V.D., 62 Wn. App. 562, 815 P.2d 277 (1991).


Note: The termination statutes require the state to show that termination of the parent-child relationship is necessary to prevent harm to the child. See Welfare of C.B., 134 Wn. App. 942, 946, 143 P.3d 846 (2006).

The right to participate in a parental rights termination proceeding extends only to persons having legal parent status under RCW 13.34.180 and .190. In re Dependency of D.M., 136 Wn. App. 387, 399, 149 P.3d 433 (2006).

[a] First Three Elements (RCW 13.34.180(1)(a), (b), and (c))

The first three elements of RCW 13.34.180(1) are generally uncontested allegations: "(a) that the child has been found to be a dependent child; (b) that the court has entered a dispositional order under RCW 13.34.136; and (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[.]"

These first three elements are jurisdictional. It is not necessary to re-prove the allegations of the dependency petition; rather, the petitioner must establish that a dependency order and a disposition order were entered. In re Dependency of J.C., 130 Wn.2d 418, 428, 924 P.2d 21 (1996); In re Dependency of A.S., 101 Wn. App. 60, 6 P.3d 11, review denied, 141 Wn.2d 1030 (2000), and cert. denied sub nom. Safouane v. Washington, 532 U.S. 930 (2001); Welfare of H.S., 94 Wn. App. at 523. This is usually done by stipulation, by certified copies of the orders, or by judicial notice of the dependency file.

A father in a termination trial successfully raised a jurisdictional challenge to the validity of the underlying dependency order in In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568, 257 P.3d 522 (2011)...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT