Background:

Child Welfare (Dependency) Court Proceedings.

Anyone, including the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), may file a petition in court alleging that a child should be a dependent of the state due to abuse, neglect, or because there is no parent, guardian, or custodian capable of adequately caring for the child. These petitions must be verified and contain a statement of facts that constitute a dependency and the names and residence of the parents if known.

When a child is taken into custody, the court is to hold a shelter care hearing within 72 hours. The primary purpose of the shelter care hearing is to determine whether the child can be immediately and safely returned home while the dependency case is being resolved.

If a court finds the need to maintain a child out of the home, the shelter care status remains until a dependency fact-finding hearing is held or the parties enter an agreed order of dependency. The fact-finding must be held within 75 days after the filing of the petition, unless exceptional reasons for a continuance are found.

If a court determines that a child is dependent, the court will conduct periodic reviews and make determinations regarding the child's placement, the provision of services by the DCYF, compliance of the parents, and whether progress has been made by the parents.

The DCYF must develop a permanency plan within 60 days from the date that the DCYF assumes responsibility for the child which must identify primary outcome goals for the case. The DCYF must submit this permanency plan to the parties and the court at least 14 days before a permanency planning court hearing. A permanency planning hearing must be held in all cases where the child has remained in out-of-home care for at least nine months, but no later than 12 months following out of home placement.

Under certain circumstances after a child has been removed from the custody of a parent for at least six months pursuant to a finding of dependency, a petition may be filed seeking termination of parental rights proving by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the:

child is dependent;
court entered a dispositional order;
child was removed from the parent for a period of at least six months;
services ordered under the dependency court order and all necessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting parental deficiencies have been expressly and understandably offered or provided; and
continuation of the parent relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home.

The court may also terminate a parent's rights if the whereabouts of the child's parent are unknown or if the parent has been convicted of certain crimes.

If a court terminates a parent's rights, all rights, powers privileges, immunities, duties, and obligations, including any rights to custody, control, visitation, or support existing between the child and parent are severed and terminated, and the parent has no standing to appear at any future legal proceedings involving the child.

Visitation for Relatives.

In 2018 a law was enacted allowing relatives to petition the court for visitation with a child. Using this process, a person who is not a parent of the child may petition for visitation with the child if:

the petitioner has an ongoing and substantial relationship with the child;
the petitioner is a relative of the child or a parent of the child; and
the child is likely to suffer harm or a substantial risk of harm if visitation is denied.

A parent whose rights have been terminated, relinquished, or declared not to exist are excluded from the relatives allowed to petition the court for visitation.

The Washington Supreme Court, in the cases In re Custody of Smith (1998) and In the Matter of the Parentage of C.A.M.A. (2005), held that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children without state interference. State interference with a parent's fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny and therefore is justified only if it is narrowly drawn to meet a compelling state interest. The Washington Supreme Court recognized that the state may interfere with a parent's fundamental right in order to prevent harm to the child. Short of preventing harm to the child, the best interests of the child standard is insufficient to serve as a compelling state interest.

Open Adoption Agreements.

Child adoptees, adoptive parents, siblings of child adoptees, and birth parents may enter into agreements regarding communication or contact. These agreements are often referred to as open adoption agreements. These agreements are not legally enforceable unless the terms of the agreement are set forth in a written court order. Courts may not enter such agreements unless the terms are approved in writing by the prospective adoptive parents, a birth parent whose parental rights have not previously been terminated, and a representative of the DCYF or child-placing agency if the child or siblings of the child are in the custody of the DCYF or a child-placing agency.

Failure to comply with an open adoption agreement is not grounds for setting aside an adoption decree.

Open adoption agreements may be enforced by a civil action and the prevailing party may be awarded a reasonable amount of attorney's fees. Courts may not modify open adoption agreements unless it finds that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child adoptee and that:

the modification is agreed to by the adoptive parent and the birth parent; or
exceptional circumstances have arisen since the agreed order was entered that justify modification.

Summary of Bill:

Services for Parents Immediately Following Birth of a Child.

The DCYF is required to actively provide services to engage parents immediately following birth to prevent the separation of the child from the child's parents.

The court, during a shelter care hearing, must inquire as to whether a documented, concerted, and good faith effort was made by the DCYF to facilitate the parent's receipt of and engagement in services to prevent any removal or separation of the child from a parent.

Visitation Petition.

A person whose parental rights were terminated may petition the court for visitation with the child who is in the custody of the DCYF if the contact is in the child's best interest.

A person whose parental rights were terminated may petition the court for visitation with the child who has been adopted if:

the person has successfully addressed the parental deficiencies that led to the termination of parental rights; and
the child is likely to suffer harm or a substantial likelihood of harm if visitation is denied.

Posttermination Contact.

If the court finds that termination of parental rights is in the child's best interest, the court shall also examine whether it is in the child's best interest to have posttermination contact with the parent, with a presumption that contact is, or in the future will be, in the child's best interest. To rebut this presumption, the DCYF must establish by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that contact is not, and never will be, in the child's best interest.

The court may enter an agreement regarding communication with or contact between child adoptees and birth parents (open adoption agreement) when a birth parent's parental rights have been terminated. Open adoption agreements may be enforced by the court which entered the order and civil fines of up to $300 may be assessed for each missed visit or violation of the contact provision.

The exceptional circumstances which allow a court to modify an open adoption agreement specifically include:

refusal of the adoptive parent to comply with visitation or contact provisions;
visitation or contact provisions that are no longer possible to follow; or
a substantial change in the circumstances of the birth parent's life that justifies less restrictive or increased visitation with the child adoptee.

The Administrative Office of the Courts must develop a pattern form for open adoption agreed orders by July 1, 2020, and parties must use the pattern forms after that date.

Other Provisions.

The definition of negligent treatment or maltreatment is modified to remove the requirement that evidence of a parent's substance abuse as a contributing factor to negligent treatment be given great weight.

Pediatric transitional care services must use evidence-based, best practices that maintain as much parent-child interaction as possible.