Dependency Proceeding. Anyone, including the Department of Child, Youth, and Families (DCYF), may file a petition in court alleging that a child should be a dependent of the state due to abandonment, abuse or 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.
Child abuse or neglect means sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation, trafficking, sex trafficking or severe forms of trafficking in persons as defined in federal law, or injury of a child by any person under circumstances which cause harm to the child's health, welfare, or safety.
Shelter Care Hearing. When a child is taken into custody, or when the petitioner is seeking the removal of a child from the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian, 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. The court must release a child to a parent at the Shelter Care Hearing unless the court finds that removal of the child is necessary to prevent imminent physical harm, including that which results from sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, a high-potency synthetic opioid, or a pattern of severe neglect. The evidence must show a casual relationship between the particular conditions in the home and imminent physical harm to the child. The court must give great weight to the lethality of high-potency synthetic opioids and public health guidance from the Department of Health related to high-potency synthetic opioids when determining whether removal of the child is necessary to prevent imminent physical harm due to child abuse or neglect.
Fact-Finding Hearing. A fact-finding hearing on a dependency petition is to be held 75 days after the petition is filed. At this hearing, it is determined whether the child is dependent. A dependent child is one who:
Conditions of the Court. If a child is under the age of five at the time the dependency petition is filed and the court releases the child to the care, custody, and control of a parent, guardian, or legal custodian, the court may order that the parent, guardian, or legal custodian comply with the least restrictive conditions necessary to maintain the safety of the child in the home if the court finds that there is reasonable cause to believe these conditions are necessary to maintain the safety of the child.
If these conditions involve the participation of the parent, guardian, or legal custodian in a service or evaluation, the parent, guardian, or legal custodian is to sign a release of information allowing DCYF to make a referral and receive any related results. DCYF is to provide all necessary referrals within seven days of the release being signed. If DCYF fails to make a timely referral or access to services, these conditions may not be used as a basis for removal, continued shelter care, or a finding of dependency.
The court may only order conditions that DCYF identifies as culturally appropriate; reasonably available and accessible to the parent, guardian, or legal custodian. Every 30 days, the court must review the case to determine whether the conditions are still necessary to maintain the safety of the child in the home.
Fact-Finding Hearing. The fact that the parent participated in prevention services, safety planning, or conditions necessary to maintain the safety of the child as ordered by the court at the Shelter Care hearing may not be construed as an admission of abuse or neglect.
Nothing in this Act is intended to supercede any provisions of the state or federal Indian Child Welfare Act.
Modifies the conditions that the court is authorized to order in the underlying bill to require that these conditions are:
Nothing in this Act is intended to supercede any provisions of the Washington Indian Child Welfare Act.
The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard. PRO: Some situations require a higher level of oversight. The added safety and keeping a child in the home is appreciate but more services are needed. In about two-thirds of the critical incidents parents were refusing services at the time that DCYF was involved in the case. Participation in services is voluntary, and in a vast majority of situations, it really should be. However, there are situations when the services and evaluations are necessary to maintain the safety of the child in the home. Policy alone is not enough. The effectiveness of this approach depends on access to services, such as substance use treatment and in-home supports. This bill would be a natural extension of therapeutic services while a child remains in the home and it is easier to work with both the parent and the child they are in the same home. When a parent is demonized, they will not seek services. An increase in overdose death is not due to legislative changes, it's due to the increase in the availability of drugs. The needs legislature to direct additional funding to address the needs of parents with addictions, including continuing to expand access to medications, substance use disorder, residential treatment where parents and children remain together, and recovery support for services.
CON: This bill doesn't have a service component. This bill leaves children over the age of four from receiving help. In-home providers are constantly being left out of the process. We should be at the table. Same with the social workers union, foster parents, and kinship. When services are mandated during the dependency process, parents have a right to contest. There's due process, notice, and opportunity to respond that happens at the dependency jurisdiction. And after that point, when their child is in the jurisdiction of the state, they can be court order to do services and evaluations against their objection. Moving this process up to shelter care is too soon.
OTHER: We urge our state leaders to focus on funding robust community based services, including pregnant and parenting services, substance use disorder treatment opportunities, public health nurses and intensive case management.
PRO: Senator Claire Wilson, Prime Sponsor; Shannon Selland, Family Impact Network; Dr. Jim Walsh; Susan Stoner, WA Parent-Child Assistance Program; Kim Justice, Partners for Our Children; Julie Watts, Department of Children, Youth and Families.
The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard. PRO: This bill is a targeted and responsive approach to the recent rise in critical incidents among children involved in the child welfare system, which is costly. We want to underscore that the effectiveness of this policy depends on families' access to meaningful services, such as substance use treatment and in-home supports. Therefore, policy alone is not enough to prevent these tragic outcomes for children.
The child welfare network administrator will ensure that families receive a swift match for services in central and eastern Washington. Providing families access to therapeutic services while a child remains in the home creates benefits for families, as well as cost savings.
Should the final supplemental budget eliminate funding for the network administrator as proposed in the Governor's budget, achieving the policy goal of this bill would be challenging in central and eastern Washington.
CON: This bill will not address critical incidents, which have been happening in record numbers. The bill leaves in place many of the same provisions as the Keeping Families Together Act. The bill does not address the imminent physical harm threshold and also leave services as voluntary. The Seattle Times recently reported that 68 percent of these fatal incidents were families who had refused services.
King County Department of Public Defense opposes the bill. While we see the bill as well-intentioned, it misunderstands the problem of parental engagement with services at the Shelter Care stage. In practice, our clients already regularly agree to services because they want to keep children in their homes and they want to be safe. And they love their children. Yet, the problem is that the services that are offered to them are overcapacity, underfunded, and not culturally responsive. A court order does not magically make a quality treatment bed available.
Without providing increased funding for services, this bill will not make a difference in the lives of children. Instead, it will create additional barriers and requirements for parents, and before a dependency finding has even been made, which raises serious constitutional issues. We ask that you better direct resources to increased funding for voluntary services.