Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                      DIVISION ONE

In the Matter of the Dependency of          )       No. 67002-6-I
                                            )
S.N.C.-C.,                                  )
                      Minor Child.          )
                                            )
                                            )
STATE OF WASHINGTON,                        )
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND                    )
HEALTH SERVICES,                            )
                                            )
                      Respondent,           )
                                            )
              v.                            )
                                            ) 
ANTHONY CHAYTOR,                            )       UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                            )
                      Appellant.            )       FILED: April 23, 2012
                                            )

       Ellington, J.  --  In this termination of parental rights case, Anthony Chaytor 

contends the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services 

(Department) failed to offer him necessary services capable of correcting his parental 

deficiencies and the juvenile court erroneously found there was little likelihood the 

deficiencies could be remedied in the near future, that continuation of the parent-child 

relationship would clearly diminish the prospects for his child's early integration into a 

permanent and stable home, and that termination of his parental relationship was in the 

child's best interests.  Substantial evidence supports the court's findings.  We therefore  

No. 67002-6-I/2

affirm.

                                       BACKGROUND

       Anthony Chaytor and Kathlena Corey are the biological parents of S.N.C.-C., 

who was born on December 15, 2006.  They lived together with Corey's three older 

children.  

       Chaytor and Corey both had a history of substance abuse and domestic 

violence.  The Department began receiving referrals about the violence between 

Chaytor and Corey in October 2007.  In December of that year, Chaytor was arrested 

for assaulting Corey in front of the children and again for violating a no-contact order.  

Chaytor pleaded guilty and was ordered to participate in domestic violence treatment.  

       In May 2008, Chaytor enrolled in a domestic violence treatment program at 

Anger Control Treatment & Therapies (ACT&T).  He admitted a criminal history 

including several drug convictions and a history of domestic abuse against Corey and 

the mother of his two adult children.  He had been incarcerated multiple times.  Chaytor 

also disclosed using marijuana and cocaine almost daily for 20 years.  ACT&T 

diagnosed Chaytor with a chemical dependency.

       In June 2008, the Department filed a dependency petition and removed all four 

of Corey's children because of concerns over her ongoing neglect.  Chaytor appeared 

at the shelter care hearing for S.N.C.-C. and was ordered to comply with his probation 

requirements, obtain suitable housing, and follow the recommendations from his 

domestic violence evaluation, including continued treatment and abstinence from any 

mood-altering substances.

                                               2 

No. 67002-6-I/3

       Chaytor entered into an agreed order of dependency in July 2008.  He admitted 

he did not have suitable housing for a child and further acknowledged the need for 

services.  The dispositional plan required Chaytor to follow all recommendations from 

his domestic violence/anger management treatment provider and remain drug and 

alcohol-free.  The court allowed him weekly supervised visitation.

       At the first permanency planning hearing in June 2009, the court identified a 

concurrent plan of adoption and return to home for S.N.C.-C. and her siblings.  Chaytor 

was in compliance with court-ordered services and had recently found housing.  The 

court ordered him to continue domestic violence/anger management treatment, abstain 

from drugs and alcohol, complete parenting classes, and have psychological testing to 

assess his cognitive abilities.  He completed a parenting class later that month, and in 

August 2009, participated in a cognitive skills evaluation with Dr. Beverly Cartwright.

       Dr. Cartwright concluded Chaytor has below-average cognitive and processing 

skills, with intellectual functioning in the borderline range of ability.  She noted that 

Chaytor benefits "if information is presented in a concrete manner, in small, discrete 

sections," and suggested ways to communicate with Chaytor to assist his "efforts to 
meet the challenges of daily living."1

       Chaytor was to graduate from his domestic violence/anger management program 

in September 2009.  As a final requirement of the year-long program, ACT&T asked 

Chaytor to produce a urine sample to rule out any drug or alcohol use.  Chaytor took 

the sample cup, but never returned or contacted ACT&T. ACT&T terminated him for 

       1 Ex. 63 at 7.

                                               3 

No. 67002-6-I/4

noncompliance.

       The following day, Chaytor was arrested in Everett while under the influence of 

cocaine.  He pleaded guilty to obstructing and possession of drug paraphernalia, and 

was ordered to complete drug and alcohol treatment.

       Upon his release from jail, Chaytor obtained a drug and alcohol evaluation 

through Downtown Emergency Service Center (DESC).  DESC is a state-certified 

program but not a Department-approved program.  DESC determined that Chaytor met 

criteria for alcohol and cocaine dependency and enrolled him in an outpatient treatment 

program.  Although DESC did not require urinalysis as part of its program, social 

workers requested urinalyses (UAs) from time to time.

       In December 2009, the Department filed a petition for termination of the parent-
child relationships for both Chaytor and Corey.2 The Department alleged Chaytor's 

parenting deficiencies included "lack of parenting skills, domestic violence, and lack of 
a stable residence."3 It alleged Chaytor had been offered services including parenting 

classes, drug/alcohol evaluation, individual counseling, domestic violence treatment, 

psychological/cognitive testing, visitation and casework management.  It further alleged 

that Chaytor "has failed to demonstrate the ability to safely parent the child [and] to 

obtain appropriate housing, was terminated from DV treatment, and incurred additional 
criminal charges in September 2009."4

       2 Corey was largely uninvolved with the dependency and termination 
proceedings, and is not a party to this appeal.

       3 Clerk's Papers at 286.

       4 Id.

                                               4 

No. 67002-6-I/5

       At a dependency review hearing ten days later, the court found Chaytor had not 

complied with court-ordered services because he had been terminated from domestic 

violence treatment, failed to abstain from mood-altering substances, and had not 

obtained a suitable, drug and alcohol-free living environment.  The court changed the 

long term plan for S.N.C.-C. from parallel plans for adoption and reunification to 

adoption only.  In addition to previously ordered services, the court ordered Chaytor to 

participate in weekly self-help groups; provide random UAs as requested; provide 

documentation of participation in alcoholics anonymous/narcotics anonymous (AA/NA) 

meetings; and obtain a psychological evaluation with a parenting component.

       At a permanency planning hearing in April 2010, Chaytor was found 

noncompliant with most of these court orders.  The court found he had not completed 

domestic violence/anger management or drug and alcohol treatment, had not provided 

documentation of AA/NA participation, and had not obtained a safe and stable living 
environment.5

       Social worker Candy Hamilton referred Chaytor for random UAs in August 2010.  

One sample tested positive for alcohol, despite having been diluted.  He admitted to his 

substance abuse treatment provider that he had relapsed in August, but claimed 

sobriety since then.  Chaytor missed a number of UAs in August and September.  On 

one occasion, Chaytor refused to come in to provide a sample because his cousins 
were in town and he 'was trying to sit here and relax with my family."6       Based on 

       5 The court also found that Chaytor had not complied with the requirement to 
provide random UAs, but the record indicates that none were requested during this 
period.

                                               5 

No. 67002-6-I/6

Chaytor's admitted use and UA results, the Department sought a hair follicle test.  But 

because Chaytor's head is shaved, that could not be done.  No further drug testing has 

been provided.

       Dr. Robin LaDue performed a psychological evaluation in August 2010.  

Dr. LaDue diagnosed Chaytor with polysubstance abuse in early remission and 

antisocial personality disorder.  She noted that Chaytor's "personality disorder and his 

drug and alcohol use are the major factors in his not being able to gain life stability and 
to parent [S.N.C.-C.] adequately and safely."7

       Dr. LaDue disagreed with Cartwright's assessment of Chaytor's cognitive ability 

and testified that he did not have any significant cognitive or developmental disabilities 

in her opinion.  Based on her clinical interviews, Dr. LaDue believed Chaytor had an IQ 

in at least the low-average range.

       Citing his inability or unwillingness to abstain from drugs and alcohol during the 

period of dependency, Dr. LaDue did not believe Chaytor was able to put the child's 

needs above his own:  "This is more based on his personality traits . . . than on his 
cognitive deficits."8  Dr. LaDue believed that Chaytor would have to maintain sobriety 

for a minimum of one year before reunification could even be considered.  She was 

concerned that with relapse, "he is at increased risk for criminal behavior, loss of 
housing, and increased mental health problems."9

       6 Report of Proceedings (RP) (Jan. 20, 2011) at 44.

       7 Ex. 52 at 12.

       8 Id. at 9.

       9 Id. at 13.

                                               6 

No. 67002-6-I/7

       Although she recommended against reunification, Dr. LaDue strongly endorsed 

continued contact between Chaytor and his daughter.  She felt an appropriate 

frequency would be "a minimum of three visits a year," but only if the father was not 
using drugs or alcohol.10  Though she had observed S.N.C.-C. for only one hour, she 

did not believe termination was in the child's interests if it meant completely eliminating 

her contact with Chaytor.

       A termination hearing was held in January, February, March and April 2011.  

The volunteer guardian ad litem (GAL) filed a report with the court recommending 

termination.  She noted that while Chaytor was fairly consistent in attending visitations, 

his record of interaction with the child was mixed.  He sometimes manifested 

"inappropriate expectations for a toddler" and "does not impose rules of behavior or 
limits on her," which caused problems for the foster family.11 According to the GAL, 

Chaytor demonstrated limited understanding of child behavior or development.  In her 

assessment, Chaytor was not a suitable placement for S.N.C.-C. because "[h]e is 45, 

has a transient living situation, a drug and alcohol history, a police record, a potentially 
violent temper, and borderline intelligence."12

       Hamilton, the Department social worker, agreed that Chaytor was currently unfit.  

His parental deficiencies were his drug and alcohol use, instability, and possible anger 

management problems.  She did not believe he would be able to fix those deficits within 

       10 RP (Jan. 19, 2011) at 87.

       11 Ex. 67 at 3. 

       12 Id. at 4.

                                               7 

No. 67002-6-I/8

a reasonable amount of time.  She believed that continuation of the parent-child 

relationship would interfere with the child's ability to integrate into a stable and 

permanent home.  She testified that a stable and permanent bond was more important 

than the bond that Chaytor shared with the child.  S.N.C.-C. has been with the same 

foster family with her brother since 2008, and the foster parents are ready and willing to 

adopt her.  Accordingly, she believed termination was in the child's best interest.

       The trial court found that all necessary services had been expressly and 

understandably offered to Chaytor, including parenting classes, drug/alcohol evaluation 

and treatment, individual counseling, domestic violence treatment, 

psychological/cognitive testing and further evaluation, and casework management.  

Finding that Chaytor "has often sought out his own services instead of waiting for 

referrals," the court noted that it was not incumbent on the Department to provide 
further referrals or require that he switch services.13 To the extent that there was a 

need for referrals, the court found the Department has attempted to make them.

       The court found that Chaytor's major parenting deficiencies are drug/alcohol 

abuse and a history of domestic violence or anger control issues.  The court found "an 

interrelationship between the father's drug abuse and violence," and that "[w]hen the 
father is using drugs, it is an extreme risk factor for violence."14 Accordingly, the court 

found that "[t]here can be no showing that the risk of violence by the father is mitigated 

until there is a significant long-term period showing that he has not been using drugs or 

       13 Clerk's Papers at 45.

       14 Clerk's Papers at 46.

                                               8 

No. 67002-6-I/9

alcohol."15  The court found Chaytor's testimony about missed or positive UAs not 

credible.  And given the history of relapse and missed or diluted UAs, "[t]he only thing 

this court can conclude from all these instances is that the father was using drugs or 
alcohol."16

       Despite Dr. Cartwright's report, the court found that other evidence indicated that 

any cognitive deficits did not constitute a significant disability, and even if it did, "it is 
not what is causing the inability to remedy the parental deficiencies."17 Noting that 

Chaytor was able to complete all sessions through ACT&T, the court found he failed 

not because he did not understand, but "because he was unable to maintain clean and 
sober."18

       The court further found there was little likelihood that Chaytor's deficiencies 

would be remedied to allow him to parent in the near future.  The court found "there 

would need to be a significant period of proven abstinence from alcohol and drugs 

before the father could be considered a fit parent.  That is not in the near future for 
[S.N.C.-C.]."19

       Finally, the court found that continuation of the parent-child relationship clearly 

diminishes the child's prospect for early integration into a stable and permanent home, 

noting that she had been in foster care for two and a half of her four years, and it would 

       15 Clerk's Papers at 46.

       16 Clerk's Papers at 47.

       17 Clerk's Papers at 48.

       18 Clerk's Papers at 48.

       19 Clerk's Papers at 50.

                                               9 

No. 67002-6-I/10

be another year at least before reunification could be considered.  The court therefore 

concluded that termination of Chaytor's parental rights were in the child's best 

interests.

                                        DISCUSSION

       "An order terminating parental rights may be entered when the six statutory 

elements set forth in RCW 13.34.180 are established by clear, cogent, and convincing 
evidence, and the court finds that termination is in the best interests of the child."20  

Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is shown 
by the evidence to be highly probable.21 Great deference is paid to the trial judge's 

findings, which are not disturbed so long as substantial evidence supports them.22

       "Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded rational 

person of the truth of the declared premise.  In this review, we do not make credibility 
determinations and we do not weigh the evidence."23 Unchallenged findings of fact are 

verities on appeal.24 Whether a termination order satisfies statutory requirements is a 

question of law, reviewed de novo.25

       Chaytor contends three of the six statutory termination criteria were not proven.26  

       20 In re Dependency of D.A., 124 Wn. App. 644, 650, 102 P.3d 847 (2004).

       21 In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 141, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995).

       22 D.A., 124 Wn. App. at 650.

       23 In re Welfare of C.B., 134 Wn. App. 942, 953, 143 P.3d 846 (2006).

       24 In re Welfare of C.B., 134 Wn. App. 336, 349, 139 P.3d 1119 (2006).

       25 In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568, 574, 257 P.3d 522 (2011).

       26 The three challenged criteria require the court to find the following:  "(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 

                                              10 

No. 67002-6-I/11

He also contends termination was not in S.N.C.-C.'s best interest.

                                    Adequacy of Services

       The Department must provide all court-ordered and necessary services and 
must tailor the services to each parent's needs.27 In determining whether adequate 

services have been provided, "the court may consider any service received, from 
whatever source, bearing on the potential correction of parental deficiencies."28

       Chaytor contends the Department failed to offer necessary services, including a 

Department-approved drug and alcohol treatment program and vocational 

rehabilitation, and failed to timely offer housing assistance, a psychological evaluation, 

and urinalysis. He further contends the Department failed to offer services tailored to 

low-functioning parents in light of his cognitive deficits.  The State responds that 

Chaytor obtained some of these services himself, refused others, did not require 

services tailored to low functioning parents, and in any event, cannot show that any 
service, if offered, would have corrected his parental deficiencies in the near future.29

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.  A 
parent's failure to substantially improve parental deficiencies within twelve months 
following entry of the dispositional order shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that 
there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be 
returned to the parent in the near future. The presumption shall not arise unless the 
petitioner makes a showing that all necessary services reasonably capable of 
correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been clearly 
offered or provided. . . . . (f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship 
clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a stable and 
permanent home." RCW 13.34.180(1).

       27 D.A., 124 Wn. App. at 651.

       28 Id. at 651-52.

                                              11 

No. 67002-6-I/12

       Drug and Alcohol Treatment. Chaytor was ordered to complete drug and alcohol 

treatment as a result of his criminal conviction.  To satisfy this requirement, and 

because he anticipated the dependency court would enter a similar order, Chaytor 

sought out drug and alcohol evaluation and treatment from DESC.  He contends the 

Department failed to provide adequate services because it knew that DESC was not a 

DSHS-approved, abstinence-based program, but never referred him to another 

program.

       First, Hamilton testified the treatment provided by DESC was appropriate, even 

though the program was not Department-approved.  Further, Chaytor's failure to 

complete an approved substance abuse program was not the basis of the termination.  

Indeed, the court found that Chaytor "engaged in services that were reasonably 
available and capable of correcting these parental deficiencies."30  

       Despite appropriate treatment and court orders requiring abstinence from mood-

altering substances, Chaytor was unable to maintain sobriety.  He does not explain how 

a different substance abuse program would have yielded success where DESC failed.  

And given his willingness to sacrifice completion of court-ordered domestic violence 

treatment by failing to remain sober, his two confirmed relapses, and his failure to 

report for UAs when asked, the evidence does not indicate that referral to a DSHS-

approved, abstinence based program would have corrected Chaytor's parental 

       29 See In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. 149, 164, 29 P.3d 1275 (2001) 
("even where the State inexcusably fails to offer a service to a willing parent, which is 
not the case here, termination is appropriate if the service would not have remedied the 
parent's deficiencies in the foreseeable future, which depends on the age of the child").

       30 Clerk's Papers at 47.

                                              12 

No. 67002-6-I/13

deficiencies.

       Vocational Rehabilitation. Based upon Chaytor's self-reported information that 

he had not worked since 2007, Dr. LaDue recommended "vocational rehabilitation 
services."31 The Department never implemented this recommendation, and Chaytor

contends it therefore failed to provide a necessary service.  But contrary to his report to 

Dr. LaDue, Chaytor was in fact self-employed, working part time to earn $15,000 to

$16,000 each year since 2008.  He has a college degree in personal training, and 

offers those services as well as landscaping, moving and painting, by advertising on 

Craigslist.  He manages his business without assistance from others.  Vocational 

rehabilitation does not appear to be a necessary service.

       Urinalysis. Chaytor also argues the Department failed to provide all necessary 

services because it did not offer urinalysis until Hamilton referred him for random UAs 

in August 2010.  The record does not support the assertion.  The evidence is that the 

court and two social workers prior to Hamilton did request UAs from him.  His domestic 

violence/ anger management treatment provider also required a UA.  Further, Chaytor

refused a number of UAs and provided one that had been intentionally diluted.  Where, 

as here, the parent refuses to participate in offered services, or where provision of 
services would have been futile, the Department's obligations are satisfied.32

       Psychological Evaluation.  The Department provided a psychological evaluation 

       31 Ex. 52 at 14.

       32 In re Welfare of M.R.H., 145 Wn. App. 10, 25-26, 188 P.3d 510 (1991); In re 
Interest of J.W., 111 Wn. App. 180, 187, 43 P.3d 1273 (2002); T.R., 108 Wn. App. at 
163-64.

                                              13 

No. 67002-6-I/14

late in the process.33 Chaytor suggests the evaluation was untimely and prevented him 

from making meaningful use of its recommendations.  But other than the Department's 

failure to implement Dr. LaDue's vocational rehabilitation recommendation, Chaytor 

does not indicate how a timely psychological evaluation would have made a difference.  

Dr. LaDue's primary concerns were Chaytor's substance abuse and criminal activity.  

       33 Though the court ordered the evaluation be conducted within 30 days of its 
December 2009 order, the Department made no referral until August 26, 2010.

                                              14 

No. 67002-6-I/15

Chaytor was already addressing these issues.

       Housing. Instability and homelessness were identified as some of Chaytor's 

major parental deficiencies early in the process.  DSHS was aware that Chaytor was 

ordered to obtain suitable housing, yet the Department did not offer assistance with 

housing until he specifically requested it, over two years after the dependency was 

established and only months before the termination hearing.  Although the Department 

clearly could have done more, Chaytor was able to obtain housing without assistance.  

A permanency planning order in June 2009 indicates that he had "recently obtained 
housing." 34 And though he requested assistance in 2010, he was again able to find 

subsidized housing on his own.  Further, termination of Chaytor's rights was not based 

on his failure to provide suitable housing.  Though the court noted that "lack of a stable 

residence" was one of the parental deficiencies that led to the dependency, the only 

significant deficiencies at termination were "drug/alcohol abuse and a history of 
domestic violence or anger control issues."35

       Tailored Services. Chaytor argues the Department failed to provide services 

properly tailored to accommodate his cognitive deficits.  He relies on In re Dependency 
of H.W.36 and In re Dependency of T.L.G.37

       34 Clerk's Papers at 48; see also Ex. 8 at 4 (noting that Chaytor "recently 
obtain[ed] his own housing, but it is unknown whether it is [a] safe, stable, suitable, and 
drug/alcohol free living environment").  

       35 Clerk's Papers at 452.

       36 92 Wn. App. 420, 961 P.2d 963 (1998).

       37 126 Wn. App. 181, 108 P.3d 156 (2005).

                                              15 

No. 67002-6-I/16

       In H.W., DSHS recognized the mother's developmental disabilities and 
attempted to tailor services to her special needs in some ways.38 Among other things, 

the Department provided her one-on-one in-home training on housecleaning and 

parenting issues.  The mother had earnestly engaged in the services the Department 

had provided and had made improvements, but her learning style proved a significant 

obstacle.  Though the Division of Developmental Disabilities could have offered her 

parenting skills services in a more accessible manner, the Department did not refer her 

to the Division.  Instead, it simply assumed that the mother lacked the ability to acquire 

and apply parenting information she needed. We reversed the termination because not 
all necessary services likely to correct her parental deficiencies had been provided.39

       Chaytor's case is not like H.W. because the record indicates that he did not 

require tailored services.  Although Dr. Cartwright found Chaytor had borderline 

cognitive ability, Dr. LaDue disagreed with that assessment.  Based on her clinical 

observations, she concluded that Chaytor had no significant cognitive or developmental 

disabilities and has an IQ in at least the low-average range.  Social worker Hamilton 

testified it never appeared to her that he had any difficulty understanding what was 

being discussed.  Chaytor's  ability to obtain his GED, complete college level courses, 

operate his own business, and successfully obtain housing and other services on his 

own suggests he did not need specialized services.  Further, Chaytor testified he had 

no difficulty understanding any of the service providers.

       38 92 Wn. App. at 426.

       39 H.W., 92 Wn.App. at 429.  

                                              16 

No. 67002-6-I/17

       Chaytor's case is also not like T.L.G. There, the Department failed to identify 

specific parental deficiencies and to provide obviously needed mental health and anger 

management services to parents for over a year until they completed a psychological 
evaluation.40 The issue was not whether services were appropriately tailored, but 

whether the necessary services were provided at all.  Here, Chaytor participated in an 

array of services aimed at correcting his identified deficiencies, including parenting 

classes, domestic violence and anger management treatment, substance abuse 

treatment, mental health counseling, cognitive and psychological testing, and 

supervised visitation.  As the trial court found, any cognitive deficit from which Chaytor 

may suffer has not significantly affected his ability to access, understand, comply with 

or benefit from services.

                  Likelihood of Remedying Conditions in the Near Future

       Chaytor assigns error to the court's findings that "[t]here is little likelihood that 

conditions will be remedied so that the child can be returned to the parents in the near 

future," that he is "currently unfit to parent," and that he has not demonstrated and 

cannot in the near future demonstrate the "significant period of proven abstinence from 

alcohol and drugs" that would be necessary before he could be considered a fit 
parent.41

       But Chaytor does not contend he was fit to parent the child at the time of the 

termination.  Rather, he contends that he was not given a meaningful opportunity to 

       40 T.L.G., 126 Wn.App. at 203.

       41 Clerk's Papers at 49-50.

                                              17 

No. 67002-6-I/18

correct parental deficiencies because the Department failed to timely provide 

necessary services.  As explained above, we disagree.

       Further, "even where the State inexcusably fails to offer a service to a willing 

parent, which is not the case here, termination is appropriate if the service would not 

have remedied the parent's deficiencies in the foreseeable future, which depends on 
the age of the child."42

       Dr. LaDue testified that reunification would be inappropriate until Chaytor had 

maintained sobriety for at least one year.  He has a twenty-year history of near daily 

drug use and a lengthy history of drug-related criminal activity.  Despite treatment, he 

had been unable to change that pattern. During the pendency of this case, Chaytor had 

two confirmed relapses and a drug-related criminal conviction.   

       S.N.C.-C. was four years old at the time of trial and is now five.  She has been in 

foster care for most of her life.  The minimum of one year that Chaytor would need to be 
able to parent is not within her foreseeable future.43

          Effect of Parent-Child Relationship on Prospects for Early Integration

       The trial court found that "[c]ontinuation of the parent-child relationship would 
prevent [S.N.C.-C.'s] integration into a stable and permanent home."44 Emphasizing 

       42 T.R., 108 Wn. App. at 164.

       43 See T.R., 108 Wn. App. at 165-66 (one year not "foreseeable" or "near" future 
for six-year-old child); In re Welfare of Hall, 99 Wn.2d 842, 851, 664 P.2d 1245 (1983) 
(eight months is not within the foreseeable future of a four-year-old child); In re 
Dependency of A.W., 53 Wn. App. 22, 32, 765 P.2d 307 (1988) (one year not in the 
near future of three-year-old child).

       44 Clerk's Papers at 50.

                                              18 

No. 67002-6-I/19

the strong bond Dr. LaDue observed between him and his child, Chaytor contends this 

finding is not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.  But a finding that 

the parental relationship will interfere with early integration into a stable and permanent 

home necessarily follows from a showing that there is little likelihood Chaytor can 
parent in the near future.45

                                  Best Interests of the Child

       When the factors of RCW 13.34.180 are proven by clear, cogent, and 

convincing evidence, the trial court must determine whether the State proved by a 
preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the child's best interests.46 The 

court found termination was in S.N.C.-C.'s best interests.  

       S.N.C.-C. has been a dependent child since she was 16 months old.  At that 

point, she was placed into a stable, loving home with her older brother, to whom she is 

very attached.  She has remained with this family ever since, and refers to her foster 
parents as "Mom Anita" and "Daddy Kevin."47 The foster parents have successfully 

resolved several issues S.N.C.-C. brought with her, and are currently obtaining 

treatment for a medical condition afflicting the child.  They wish to have both children 

permanently, and will be designated guardians of S.N.C.-C.'s brother.  The GAL 

recommends that S.N.C.-C. "finally be released and allowed a permanent adoptive 
home."48

       45 D.A., 124 Wn. App. at 657; T.R., 108 Wn. App. at 166.

       46 RCW 13.34.190(1)(b); K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d at 577.

       47 Ex. 52 at 1.

       48 Ex. 67 at 4.

                                              19 

No. 67002-6-I/20

       To counter this, Chaytor cites only his strong bond with his daughter and 

Dr. LaDue's testimony that continued contact with Chaytor was in S.N.C.-C.'s best 

interest.  But LaDue's opinion was qualified.  She felt contact need not be frequent --  "a 

minimum of three visits at least a year" -- and should be permitted only if Chaytor was 
sober and out of jail.49 Unfortunately, Chaytor's history makes his ability to meet these 

conditions uncertain.

       Though it is never easy to terminate parental rights when the parent cares for 

the child and desires to be a good parent, the overriding goal of a termination 
proceeding is to serve the child's best interests.50 Substantial evidence supports the 

court's finding that S.N.C.-C.'s best interests were served by terminating Chaytor's 

rights.

       Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

       49 RP (Jan. 19, 2011) at 87.

       50 A.W., 53 Wn. App. at 33-34.

                                              20