NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits (for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of the court. The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports. For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential (unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there. For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON MARCH 30, 2023 IN CLERK’S OFFICE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON MARCH 30, 2023 ERIN L. LENNON SUPREME COURT CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
) In the Matter of the Dependency of ) No. 101270-5 ) A.M.F., ) En Banc ) a minor child. ) _______________________________) Filed: March 30, 2023
GONZÁLEZ, C.J.—This case involves three important principles: the State’s
obligation to protect an at-risk child, the parent’s right to parent their child, and the
constitutional prohibition on coercing testimony in criminal cases.
Under our constitution, “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. CONST. amend V. To give force to this
constitutional principle, no person may be compelled to testify in any situation
where their testimony might be used against them in a criminal prosecution, and
the judge or jury in a criminal case may not draw a negative inference from the
defendant’s silence.
In contrast, the trier of fact in a civil case generally may choose to draw a
negative inference from the assertion of the right to remain silent. But while a
negative inference may be drawn, the State may not impose an adverse For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
consequence on a person based solely on their assertion of their right to remain
silent, even in a civil matter.
In this case, a child was removed from his mother and placed with his
grandparents out of concern that she could not care for him. Years later, the State
sought to terminate that mother’s parental rights. On advice of counsel, she
declined to answer questions related to her recent drug use. The trial judge chose
to draw a negative inference from her assertion of that right. We must decide
whether, under the Fifth Amendment, that was permissible. We stress that such a
negative inference must not be the only evidence supporting termination. In this
case, however, it was not error for the court to draw a negative inference from the
mother’s refusal to answer specific questions about her drug use. We affirm the
courts below and remand for any further proceedings necessary to carry out this
decision.
FACTS
YR is the biological mother of AMF. AMF was born with
methamphetamines and opiates in his system. Hospital staff referred AMF to the
Department of Children, Youth, and Family Services. Shortly afterward, YR’s
family met with a social worker and expressed significant concerns about her
ability to care for her son due to ongoing, untreated substance use; her mental
health; and her long-term struggles with housing instability. After AMF finished
2 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
treatment for withdrawal, YR’s parents took him into their home, where he has
lived his whole life. The record suggests his grandparents wish to adopt him.
Meanwhile, YR’s struggles, particularly with substance abuse, continued through
the dependency.
When AMF was 19 months old, the State petitioned to terminate YR’s
parental rights. At the time of trial, it appears YR was facing criminal charges.
The nature of those charges is not revealed in the record before us. YR testified at
trial but, on the advice of counsel, did not answer questions about the last time she
had used illegal drugs. The trial court agreed YR was entitled to exercise the right
to remain silent, but it warned her that it might draw a negative inference from her
silence.
The court did draw that negative inference, based on that and the other
evidence presented; found the State had met all the statutory factors; and granted
the termination petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed and our commissioner
granted review. The King County Department of Public Defense, Washington
Defender Association, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, and the
Washington State Office of Public Defense submitted an amici brief in support of
YR.
3 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
ANALYSIS
1. Right To Remain Silent
Whether a trial judge may draw a negative inference from a parent’s
assertion of the right to remain silent in a parental rights termination trial is a legal
question we review de novo. See Tomlinson v. Puget Sound Freight Lines, Inc.,
166 Wn.2d 105, 109, 206 P.3d 657 (2009) (citing Ingram v. Dep’t of Licensing,
162 Wn.2d 514, 522, 173 P.3d 259 (2007)). We review challenged findings of fact
for substantial evidence. Id. (citing Ingram, 162 Wn.2d at 522).
Under both our State and federal constitutions, “[n]o person shall be
compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself.” WASH. CONST.
art. I, § 9; U.S. CONST. amend. V (“No person . . . shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself.”). These constitutional protections
are a response, in part, to prerevolutionary British investigatory techniques where
people were made to be witnesses against themselves at risk of torture or
damnation. See generally Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 442-43, 86 S. Ct.
1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) (quoting Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 596-97, 16
S. Ct. 644, 40 L. Ed. 819 (1896)); Katharine B. Hazlett, The Nineteenth Century
Origins of the Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 42 AM. J. OF
LEGAL HIST. 235, 237-38 (1998); Robert Heidt, The Conjurer’s Circle—The Fifth
Amendment Privilege in Civil Cases, 91 YALE L.J. 1062, 1083-84 (1982).
4 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
The Fifth Amendment “not only protects the individual against being
involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also
privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding,
civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in
future criminal proceedings.” Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S. Ct. 316,
38 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1973). The State does not dispute that under these principles and
given the pending criminal charges, YR had the right not to answer questions about
her current drug use.
The trier of fact in a criminal case may not use the defendant’s silence as
evidence of guilt. State v. Burke, 163 Wn.2d 204, 206, 181 P.3d 1 (2008); see also
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 614-15, 85 S. Ct. 1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106
(1965). That is not the only difference between civil and criminal cases. Most
significantly for the case before us, the trier of fact in a civil case may draw a
negative inference from a witness’s invocation of the right to remain silent. As we
have observed:
The purpose of the privilege against self-incrimination is to protect the witness from compulsory disclosure of criminal liability. When a witness in a civil suit refuses to answer a question on the ground that his answer might tend to incriminate him, the result sought to be achieved by invoking the constitutional privilege is accomplished. Such refusal cannot be used against him in a subsequent criminal proceeding. However, the trier of facts in a civil case is entitled to draw an inference from his refusal to so testify.
5 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
Ikeda v. Curtis, 43 Wn.2d 449, 457-58, 261 P.2d 684 (1953); see also Diaz v.
Wash. State Migrant Council, 165 Wn. App. 59, 85, 265 P.3d 956 (2011) (“It is
well settled that in civil litigation the exercise by a party of his or her Fifth
Amendment privilege does not protect the invoking party from adverse inferences
that may logically be drawn from its exercise.” (citing Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425
U.S. 308, 318, 96 S. Ct. 1551, 47 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1976))); King v. Olympic Pipe
Line Co., 104 Wn. App. 338, 355-56, 16 P.3d 45 (2000) (“[O]nce a witness in a
civil suit has invoked his or her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination, the trier of fact is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the
refusal to testify.” (citing Ikeda, 43 Wn.2d at 458)).
Here we must decide whether such an adverse inference is inappropriate in a
parental rights termination case. We note that state courts have overwhelmingly
found the trier of fact may draw a negative inference from a parent’s assertion of
the right to remain silent in similar cases. See Melissa W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety,
238 Ariz. 115, 117, 357 P.3d 150 (Ct. App. 2015) (“A juvenile court’s drawing a
negative inference when a parent fails to testify at a severance hearing is
particularly appropriate.”); Custody of Two Minors, 396 Mass. 610, 616, 487
N.E.2d 1358 (1986) (“The unique characteristics of child custody proceedings do
not require alteration or modification of the rule permitting inferences from a
party’s failure to testify in a civil case.”); In re C.O., 171 N.H. 748, 763, 203 A.3d
6 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
870 (2019) (“[W]e conclude that the circuit court may draw an adverse inference
from a parent’s failure to acknowledge wrongdoing where it is relevant to
determining whether the parent failed to correct the conditions that led to the
findings of abuse or neglect, even where the parent has invoked her right against
self-incrimination.”); In re Ashley M., 235 A.D.2d 858, 858, 653 N.Y.S.2d 163
(1997) (“[R]espondent’s failure to testify allowed Family Court to draw the
strongest inferences against him as the opposing evidence permitted.”). But see
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. S.K., 456 N.J. Super. 245, 251, 193 A.3d
309 (App. Div. 2018) (disapproving of the inference when the only other evidence
of parental unfitness was inadmissible hearsay). 1
YR argues the inference was improper here because of the significant liberty
interests at stake. But whether the Fifth Amendment applies does not turn on
whether the liberty interests at stake are significant. By its plain terms, the Fifth
Amendment applies only to criminal cases. U. S. CONST. amend V. Historically,
we have considered whether additional constitutional protections beyond those
1 We stress that questions posed to a witness must be designed to elicit relevant testimony. See ER 401, 402; see also People v. Chatman, 38 Cal. 4th 344, 379-80, 133 P.3d 534, 42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 621 (2006) (noting it is improper to elicit inadmissible testimony). The questions must be appropriate and, when required, lay a proper foundation. See generally State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 591-92, 183 P.3d 267 (2008). The appropriate scope of any negative inference taken will turn on the circumstances. See, e.g., Diaz, 165 Wn. App. at 65, 87 (holding that judge properly instructed the jury that it may take a negative inference from a party’s failure to provide discovery). In this case, the foundation was laid and inference was that YR had used drugs recently, which was both relevant and detrimental to her theory of the case. 7 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
provided by statute are required in dependency and termination cases under the due
process clause. See In re Dependency of E.H., 191 Wn.2d 872, 894, 427 P.3d 587
(2018) (plurality opinion) (applying the due process analysis set forth in Mathews
v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976), to determine
whether a child has a constitutional right to counsel in dependency proceedings);
In re Dependency of M.S.R., 174 Wn.2d 1, 14, 271 P.3d 234 (2012) (same). YR
does not make a Mathews argument.
Instead, YR calls our attention to two United States Supreme Court cases
that did extend the Fifth Amendment prohibition on drawing a negative inference
to specific civil cases: Garrity v. New Jersey 385 U.S. 493, 87 S. Ct. 616, 17 L. Ed.
2d 562 (1967), and Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 87 S. Ct. 625, 17 L. Ed. 2d 574
(1967) (plurality opinion). In Garrity, police officers were investigated for
misconduct. The officers were told by investigators that they could decline to
answer questions that would tend to incriminate them, but if they did, they would
forfeit their jobs under a since-repealed statute that required public employees to
cooperate with investigations or be fired. Garrity, 385 U.S. at 494-95. The
officers answered the questions, and their answers were used in subsequent
successful prosecutions. Id. at 495. The court found the statements were
involuntary and reversed. Id. at 497-98, 500 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 464-
65). Similarly, in Spevack, a majority of the Court concluded a lawyer could not
8 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
be disbarred merely for refusing to answer questions in a discipline hearing. 385
U.S. at 516 (lead opinion of Douglas, J.) (quoting United States v. White, 322 U.S.
694, 698, 64 S. Ct. 1248, 88 L. Ed. 1542 (1944)), 520 (Fortas, J., concurring in the
judgment).
YR argues that “[b]ecause the deprivation of parental rights is a more
serious deprivation than losing a career, it is impermissible for a court to draw an
adverse inference from a parent’s lawful exercise of her Fifth Amendment rights.”
Suppl. Br. of Pet’r Mother at 12. But nothing in Garrity, Spevack, or any other
authority provided supports extending the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent
to all civil cases categorically, or even to important civil cases. While Garrity and
Spevack stress the importance of the right to remain silent generally, the Court has
since held that Garrity and Spevack merely forbid a negative inference where the
“failure to respond to interrogation was treated as a final admission of guilt,” not
that a negative inference is itself improper. Baxter, 425 U.S. at 318.
Baxter also reaffirmed “the prevailing rule that the Fifth Amendment does
not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to
testify in response to probative evidence offered against them: the Amendment
‘does not preclude the inference where the privilege is claimed by a party to a civil
cause.’” Id. (quoting 8 JOHN HENRY WIGMORE, EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON
LAW § 2272, at 439 (John T. McNaughton rev. ed. 1961)); see also Cabral-Avila v.
9 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 589 F.2d 957, 959 (9th Cir. 1978) (allowing
negative inferences to be drawn from silence in immigration proceedings).
Instead, “if [the witnesses] are compelled . . . to furnish testimonial evidence that
might incriminate them in later criminal proceedings, they must be offered
‘whatever immunity is required to supplant the privilege’ and may not be required
to ‘waive such immunity.’” Baxter, 425 U.S. at 316 (quoting Lefkowitz, 414 U.S. at
85).
Taken together, Baxter, Spevack, and Garrity establish that the Fifth
Amendment does not allow the State to meet its evidentiary burden in a civil case
based solely on an assertion of the right to remain silent. Baxter, 425 U.S. at 317-
18; Spevack, 385 U.S. at 514; Garrity, 385 U.S. at 497. In this case, the trial court
did not base any finding, let alone its judgment, solely on YR’s silence.
YR also calls to our attention a recent intermediate court of appeals case out
of New Jersey, S.K., 456 N.J. Super. 245. We do not find this case helpful. In S.K.,
a father was charged with sexually abusing his daughter. While the charges were
pending, and the father was in jail, the State brought an action to determine
whether the father was unfit because he had sexually abused his child. Id. at 250-
51. The child did not testify, and the State offered only her hearsay statements to
establish that the abuse had happened. Id. at 251. In New Jersey, a child’s hearsay
statement cannot be the sole basis for a finding of abuse or neglect. Id. at 272
10 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
(quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17, 32-33, 11 A.3d
844 (2011)). The court acknowledged that typically “[w]hen a party in a civil
matter asserts the privilege against self-incrimination, the fact-finder may draw an
adverse inference of guilt.” Id. at 266 (citing Attor v. Attor, 384 N.J. Super. 154,
165-66, 894 A.2d 83 (Ct. App. Div. 2006)). But the only evidence of abuse
presented was the child’s hearsay and the father’s silence. Id. at 251, 272. The S.K.
court found it was improper to base an adverse ruling on inadmissible hearsay and
silence. Id. at 272. That is a very different case from what we have here.
Under controlling United States Supreme Court precedent, the Fifth
Amendment does allow the trier of fact in a civil case to make a negative inference
from the assertion of the right to remain silent, unless that is the only evidence
supporting an adverse action against the witness. Baxter, 425 U.S. at 317-18. As
the trial court’s judgment was not based merely on the mother’s silence, the
inference did not violate the Fifth Amendment.
2. Legal Permanency
YR also contends termination was inappropriate because the State failed to
prove that continuation of her legal relationship with AMF diminished his
11 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
prospects for integration into a stable and permanent home or was in his best
interests. We reject both arguments.
To terminate a parent’s parental rights, the trial court must find by clear,
cogent, and convincing evidence “[t]hat continuation of the parent and child
relationship clearly diminishes the child’s prospects for early integration into a
stable and permanent home,” among other things. Former RCW 13.34.180(1)(f)
(2018).2 It must also find that termination is in the best interests of the child.
RCW 13.34.190(1)(b). The trial court made these findings. YR argues both
findings were in error because termination will not change AMF’s placement with
his grandparents.
The focus of subsection .180(1)(f) is the “continued effect of the legal
relationship between parent and child, as an obstacle to adoption; it is especially a
concern where children have potential adoption resources.” In re Dependency of
A.C., 123 Wn. App. 244, 250, 98 P.3d 89 (2004). A trial court can also find
subsection .180(1)(f) satisfied when the parental relationship is an impediment to a
legal, permanent placement in an adoptive home. In re Dependency of A.D., 193
Wn. App. 445, 458-59, 376 P.3d 1140 (2016).3
2 After the termination order was entered in this case, the legislature amended this statute to direct courts to consider “whether a guardianship is available as a permanent option for the child.” LAWS OF 2022, ch. 127, § 2(1)(f), codified at RCW 13.34.180(1)(f). YR does not argue this amendment is retroactive. 3 The Court of Appeals has suggested that these are the only two ways to meet that element. In re Welfare of R.H., 176 Wn. App. 419, 428, 309 P.3d 620 (2013) (citing A.C., 123 Wn. App. at 12 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
In this case, the trial court considered the evidence and found continuing YR
and AMF’s relationship clearly diminished AMF’s prospect for permanency
because, without the termination of YR’s parental rights, he would not be eligible
for adoption. It also concluded that termination was in AMF’s best interests as
both a matter of fact and law. While the court did not elaborate, its findings
suggest that the trial court believed termination was in AMF’s best interests
because YR was unfit and termination would allow AMF to be adopted.
Given the record before us, we find no error.
CONCLUSION
YR has not shown the trial court erred in drawing a negative inference from
her refusal to answer specific questions. Nor has she shown the trial court erred in
concluding that continuing the parent-child relationship clearly diminished AMF’s
prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home or that
termination is in his best interests. We affirm the courts below and remand for any
further proceedings necessary.
250; In re Dependency of K.D.S., 176 Wn.2d 644, 658-59, 294 P.3d 695 (2013)). We note in passing that we have not been asked to consider whether this is an accurate statement of the law. 13 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. In re Dependency of A.M.F., No. 101270-5
____________________________
WE CONCUR:
_____________________________ ____________________________