In re G.A.

In the Matter of the Dependency of G.A. and L.A., Minor Children.

Nos. 81412-5-I, 81387-1-I, 81413-3-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

August 30, 2021

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

APPELWICK, J.

The mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her daughters, L.A. and G.A. She argues that the trial court erred by: (1) finding that the Department offered her all necessary services, (2) finding that she had a parental deficiency related to her mental health, (3) finding that there was little likelihood that she could remedy her parental deficiencies in the near future, and (4) admitting L.A.'s and G.A.'s testimony at the termination trial. G.A.'s father also appeals the order which terminated his parental rights to G.A. He joins most of the mother's challenges and further claims that the trial court erred by finding that the continuation of his relationship with G.A clearly diminishes G.A.'s prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home. We affirm.

FACTS

As of December 2013, when L.A. and G.A. were removed from her care the mother had four children, from oldest to youngest: Ge.A (a son), L.A. (a daughter), J.A. (a son), and G.A. (a daughter). G.A.'s father (the father) is also the father of J.A. but not of the other children. At the time of the termination trial, L.A.'s father was facing criminal charges for allegedly molesting L.A.^[1]

The mother was born and raised in Mexico; she came to the United States when she was 19 and does not speak English. The mother had a tumultuous relationship with the father, who physically and sexually abused her. Additionally, the mother was aware for several years before she married him that the father admitted to sexually touching a young girl. The mother also had concerns that the father would sexually molest G.A. if he had the opportunity.

The mother has been involved with the Department of Children Youth, and Families (Department)^[2] since 2010. Since that time there have been a number of screened intakes involving allegations of chronic neglect of the children, mental health issues for the mother, and behavioral issues with Ge.A. In December 2013, the Department filed dependency petitions for all four children, and the children were removed from the mother's care. L.A. and G.A., who at the time were seven and two years old, respectively, have not lived with the mother since.

In March 2014, the juvenile court entered an order adjudging Ge.A., L.A., J.A., and G.A. dependent as to the mother based on agreed facts. The court also entered an order adjudging G.A. and J.A. dependent as to the father. The father did not admit to the facts in his dependency order but "acknowledge[d] that the Court would be able to find [those] facts by a preponderance of the evidence." The court later appointed Karen Deyerle as court appointed special advocate (CASA) for L.A. and G.A.^[3]

According to the dependency orders, ^[4] the mother moved to domestic violence shelters on many occasions and, in 2011 and 2012, filed for protection orders against the father. Additionally, in January 2013, Ge.A.'s counselor reported that Ge.A. said the father had hit him multiple times. The mother also alleged that the father had physically assaulted both her and the children. The mother has been aware since 2011 that the father was investigated for sexually abusing L.A., and the mother spoke with police about the father molesting L.A. and her son.

The mother's dependency order recounted reports of the mother not intervening when Ge.A. was being violent toward his younger siblings, asking for a strait jacket to restrain Ge.A., and not providing adequate supervision at home. It also recounted reports of the mother not attempting to locate Ge.A. and J.A. when they left the home and were gone for hours, not following through with the children's appointments, dressing the children inappropriately for the weather, having extreme mood shifts, and not following through with offered services. The juvenile court found that "[t]he mother is, at times, unable to perform basic care which leaves the children in an unhygienic physical condition." The court also found that "[i]t appears the mother may have a mental health condition that renders her incapable of routinely or consistently attending to her children's basic needs." Additionally, the court found that "[t]here are concerns about the safety of the children in the care of [the father]" due to past reports of domestic violence.

The juvenile court ordered an out-of-home placement for all four children. The court ordered the mother to complete a psychological evaluation with a parenting component and follow any treatment recommendations. It also ordered the mother to participate in individual mental health counseling and follow any treatment recommendations, and complete an age-appropriate parenting class. The court ordered the father to complete a domestic violence batterer's assessment, an age-appropriate parenting class, and a parenting assessment.

On July 5, 2014, the father completed a domestic violence assessment with Zoila Saritama, a Spanish-speaking domestic violence counselor at La Esperanza Health Counseling Services. Saritama assessed the father as a moderate risk, meaning that he could go back to the same abusive behavior without completing a one year domestic violence batterer's treatment. Saritama testified that she recommended a one year treatment program, but although the father began the program he did not complete it. During the treatment, the father returned to his abusive behavior and committed an act of domestic violence against the mother.

In September 2014, the juvenile court entered an order directing that the mother's psychological evaluation be conducted by a "Dr. Ruddell" and stating, "[I]t is encouraged that a Spanish speaking evaluator assist in conducting the evaluation." The order was entered on the mother's motion, and it indicated that the mother had requested a "Dr. Antuna" to conduct her psychological evaluation in Spanish.

In January 2015, the Department referred the mother to Tania Hino, a Spanish-speaking parenting coach. Hino did not work with the mother for very long because she believed that the mother was not ready to engage in parent coaching. Hino observed that the mother frequently presented with a flat affect, was not engaged, and appeared to have no connection with her children. During her observations, Hino also noted that the children would make efforts to connect with their mother, but did not look to her for structure or guidance.

Hino later testified that she "felt like [the mother] needed a mental health evaluation or . . . some kind of disability evaluation because she didn't seem to be engaging in the parenting coaching." Hino testified that even though she spoke with the mother in Spanish, it did not seem like the mother understood her. Hino testified that she "talked to the social worker and recommended that [the mother get] a mental health evaluation, maybe some kind of attachment therapy . . ., and also [a] learning disability evaluation."

In April 2015, Dr. Alyssa Ruddell and Dr. Claudette Antuna completed a psychological evaluation of the mother, with a parenting component. The record reflects that Dr. Antuna provided six diagnoses, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and an unspecified neurocognitive disorder. However, neither Dr. Ruddell nor Dr. Antuna testified at trial, and the record does not reflect the full results of their evaluation or what, if any, recommendations they made.^[5] Around the same time that the mother completed her evaluation with Drs. Ruddell and Antuna, the mother began parenting classes with Saritama at La Esperanza.

Following a May 7, 2015 dependency review hearing, the juvenile court found that the Department had "insured that the mother has services such as mental health counseling, parenting class, parenting coach and a psychological evaluation." The court also found, "The mother has continued to participate in services to the best of her ability. She has completed her psychological evaluation, and she has started to participate in her mental health counseling and parenting class. The mother did also participate in [sic] a parenting coach." The court found the mother's progress to be partial, noting, "Although the mother has participated in all of her services[, t]he mother's [PTSD] impair[s] her ability to appropriately parent or make good decisions with her children." The court also found that the father "is now in a relationship with the mother and does not express any concerns about the abuse that occurred in the home." And, it found that "[t]he Department is extremely concerned about their relationship, due to the extreme history of domestic violence."

In June 2015, Hereri Contreras, a Spanish-speaking family therapist, completed a parenting assessment of the father. Contreras's assessment consisted of parent-child observation sessions, interviews, and a home visit. Contreras was not able to consult any collateral contacts because none of the people the father named were willing to talk with Contreras. Contreras used various tools to assess the father's risk of committing child abuse. The father's scores indicated he had unrealistically high expectations of children that led to an increased risk of abusing them. Additionally, the father demonstrated no accountability, no remorse, and no ability to acknowledge the impact of his actions on others. Contreras later opined that the father posed a high risk of being a repeat offender.

During the parenting assessment, the father admitted that when he was 19, he touched a five year old in a sexual way. When asked about allegations of sexual abuse against L.A., he stated," '[I]f it...