IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Dependency of No. 83708-7-I (consolidated with R.L.S., No. 83742-7-I)
UNPUBLISHED OPINION Minor Child.
MANN, J. — Both parents of R.L.S. appeal the trial court’s termination of their
parental rights. The mother contends that the Department of Children, Youth, and
Families (Department) did not timely offer her all necessary services to address her
parenting deficiencies. 1 The father contends that the Department did not timely offer
him all court-ordered services to address his parenting deficiencies, the trial court erred
in drawing a negative inference from his invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to
remain silent, and the trial court erred in determining that he was currently unfit to
parent R.L.S. We affirm.
1 The mother assigned error to several of the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in
her opening brief. But she failed to address all of them in her argument. Assignments of error to findings of fact that are not argued in a brief are abandoned on appeal. In re Marriage of Glass, 67 Wn. App. 378, 381 n.1, 835 P.2d 1054 (1992). No. 83708-7-I/2
I
A
The mother and father have two children together: R.L.S., born in August 2018,
and M.S., born in June 2020. The father has an older son, born in 2009. The mother
also has an older daughter, A.M., born in 2017. In 2017, the Department filed a
dependency petition as to A.M. In July 2020, the mother’s parental rights to A.M. were
terminated. A.M. lives with her maternal aunt.
The Department filed a dependency petition as to R.L.S. in November 2018 after
he tested positive for amphetamines and opiates at the time of birth. Similarly, the
Department filed a dependency petition as to M.S. after he tested positive for
amphetamines and opiates at the time of birth. Both R.L.S. and M.S. were placed with
the same maternal aunt as A.M.
B
On November 30, 2018, the trial court found the mother in default for failing to
appear and entered a dependency order. The mother’s identified parental deficiencies
consisted of untreated drug and alcohol issues, untreated mental health issues, and
lack of understanding of the child’s developmental needs. The mother was ordered to
complete a drug and alcohol evaluation, a mental health evaluation, a parenting
assessment, and follow through with any recommendations from these assessments,
and undergo random urinalysis (UA) testing, twice per week for 90 days. The mother
was also ordered to complete intensive family preservation services upon the child’s
return home. 2
2 Because R.L.S. was never returned home, the mother was never referred to this service.
-2- No. 83708-7-I/3
The mother made some efforts to engage in services after she was arrested in
early 2019. When she was transferred to the Yakima County Department of
Corrections in May 2019, she was able to obtain a substance use evaluation and get a
bed at Triumph Inpatient Treatment. While the mother was at Triumph from June 2019
until September 2019, she was having weekly visits with R.L.S., and at a family team
decision-making meeting, plans were made to start a transition home.
But because of a court date in Olympia, the mother left Triumph and was
discharged early from the program. When her criminal trial was continued, Department
social worker Amy Holmes arranged for the mother to return to Triumph and resume
treatment where she left off. Holmes communicated with the mother’s attorney and,
over several days, encouraged the mother to return to treatment but the mother decided
to leave Yakima.
Holmes made several more attempts to get the mother to return to inpatient
treatment, first trying Seadrunar. Then in April 2020, during the mother’s pregnancy
with M.S., Holmes met with the mother at Swedish Ballard. Holmes accompanied the
mother through intake and watched her get on the elevator for the treatment floor—but
the mother immediately left the facility. The mother told Holmes that she left because
she was afraid she would be arrested for her outstanding warrants if her whereabouts
were known.
In September 2020, the Department assigned social worker Dominic Benavides
to R.L.S.’s case. When Benavides took over, he communicated with the intake
coordinator at Evergreen Treatment Center regarding a potential bed date for the
mother. But the mother missed the bed date. The mother later told Benavides that she
-3- No. 83708-7-I/4
engaged with services at Evergreen Treatment Services for a drug and alcohol
evaluation in June 2021. However, the Department never received a copy. Benavides
also discussed a walk-in option at New Traditions with the mother. The mother went to
Evergreen for methadone treatment in 2021. At the time of trial, the mother had not
completed any intensive outpatient treatment or inpatient treatment for substance use.
Both social workers referred the mother for random UAs throughout the case.
They did not submit referrals while the mother was in custody or in treatment because
the Department wanted to see if the parent was able to maintain sobriety out in the
world. The referred providers were in locations that would be convenient for the mother.
Holmes also offered to drive the mother to the locations but plans fell through.
In early 2021, Benavides received letters from 2nd Chance Recovery stating that
the mother was undergoing Intensive Outpatient Treatment and completing random
UAs. Benavides was suspicious because the communications from 2nd Chance didn’t
match what he was used to seeing from providers. The owner of 2nd Chance, James
Lawrence, testified at trial that the purported employee listed on the documents
submitted by the parents never worked for him. Lawrence testified that the mother had
been referred to 2nd Chance for random UAs, but she never called in or showed up for
UAs and had never been to 2nd Chance. Lawrence believed that the documents were
fraudulent and made a complaint with the Department of Health. The Department never
received proof that the mother had undergone UAs outside of a treatment setting.
The mother obtained a mental health evaluation at Catholic Community Services
while she was in Yakima in 2019. The report recommended individual counseling. The
mother attended two sessions and then left Yakima. This did not fulfill the
-4- No. 83708-7-I/5
recommendations from the evaluation. Holmes tried to get the mother to reengage in
counseling and provided the mother with information about Valley Cities and Behavioral
Health Resources (BHR). Benavides also discussed walk-in options in King County
with the mother, including Sound Behavioral Health and Valley Cities but the mother
never followed through.
The mother completed a parenting assessment with Tawnya Wright in July 2019
while she was engaged in services at Triumph. However, on January 23, 2020, the
mother agreed to complete a new parenting assessment because the previous
assessment did not include standardized testing as the dependency order required.
The mother was referred to Dr. Washington-Harvey. Dr. Washington-Harvey left a
voicemail for the mother. This referral was still active when Benavides took over for
Holmes. But the mother never responded and never completed a new assessment.
Holmes discussed additional services with the mother that she might find
supportive and referred her to Kent Family Services to attend the parenting class,
Incredible Years. And when the mother missed several classes, Holmes referred her to
the next class starting in 2020 at Catholic Community Services. The mother never
attended.
C
On January 18, 2019, the father entered into an agreed dependency. In the
order, he agreed to complete a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow treatment
recommendations, and undergo random UA testing, 3 times a week for 90 days. On
February 21, 2019, following a disposition hearing, the father was also ordered to
complete a domestic violence batterer’s assessment and a parenting assessment, and
-5- No. 83708-7-I/6
follow through with any treatment recommendations. The father’s identified parental
deficiencies consisted of untreated drug or alcohol issues, unresolved domestic
violence batterers issues, and lack of understanding of the child’s developmental needs.
The father was in custody from late 2018 until September 2019. And for three
months in summer 2021, June to August.
Holmes made many attempts to communicate with the father. She sent service
letters to multiple addresses for the father, including to his parents. She also
communicated with the mother, who indicated she was living with the father, and asked
her to pass sealed letters to the father. The father responded by text once in 2019,
acknowledging that he had the information on how to access services. Before entry of
the dependency, Holmes was able to meet with the father a few times in fall 2018. But
in 2019 and 2020, Holmes only received a few text messages from the father and met
with him only once. Benavides also had difficulty communicating with the father. He
sent e-mails and made phone calls to a number that was sometimes inactive. He also
spoke with the father over the phone through the mother when they were together.
In March 2019, Holmes met with the father while he was in custody at the Maleng
Regional Justice Center (MRJC) and went over his court-ordered services. In a service
letter following that visit, Holmes notified the father that she was unable to find a
provider who could complete a parenting assessment while he was in custody but she
would submit a referral once he was released.
Holmes made a referral for the parenting assessment to Dr. Washington-Harvey
in January 2020. That referral was active until late 2020 when Benavides took over for
Holmes. In 2021, Benavides worked with the father’s Office of Public Defense social
-6- No. 83708-7-I/7
worker to identify a provider that would be able to go into the jail. But because of
COVID, they could not find a provider. The father acknowledged that he knew how to
get in touch with Dr. Washington-Harvey in a text to Holmes in 2019. In his last
communication with the father before trial, Benavides re-offered and encouraged the
father to participate in a parenting assessment, but because he was no longer in King
County, Benavides needed to research provider options.
Holmes first referred the father to Northwest Family Life for a domestic violence
assessment in May 2019 while he was in custody. The assessment did not occur
because the provider was only available in King County and the father was transferred
to Thurston County. Holmes referred him again when he was out of custody.
Holmes sent the father service letters with names and locations of places where
he could obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation. She also tried to find a provider willing to
go into the jail but was unsuccessful. When the father was released, Holmes had
almost no contact with him.
The father was “consistently clear that he was not willing to do UAs.”
Regardless, Holmes referred the father for UA testing in 2020 at locations close to
where he was purportedly living and made multiple attempts to notify him of the referral.
Benavides also made several referrals for the father to obtain UAs. Benavides received
notification that the father did not show up for his random UAs. The Department never
received any UAs attributed to the father.
The only drug treatment program the Department ever received information from
about the father was 2nd Chance Recovery. However, 2nd Chance never sent actual
UA results or supporting documentation. Like with the mother, Lawrence explained that
-7- No. 83708-7-I/8
there were no records the father ever came to 2nd Chance and, while he was referred
for UAs, he never called or showed up for them. And the documents were reported to
the Department of Health as fraudulent.
While the father understood the services he was court ordered to do, he objected
to many of them. The father never completed any court-ordered services.
D
The termination trial took place over 10 days between December 14, 2021, and
January 6, 2022. Fourteen witnesses testified, including the mother, father, social
workers Holmes and Benavides, and court appointed special advocate (CASA) Debbie
Turner. The mother and father were each represented by counsel. The court provided
three methods for the parents to attend trial: zoom, 3 phone, and in person. The father
was present for much of the trial by phone but was often absent without explanation.
And the mother was present by phone for only a small portion of trial and did not
attempt to explain most of her absence. The trial court found the testimony of the father
and the mother was often internally inconsistent, inconsistent with other evidence, and
often not credible. The court found all other witnesses’ testimony was credible.
The trial court concluded that the Department met its burden to terminate the
parents’ parental rights. The trial court found that all services were expressly and
understandably offered or provided to the mother but “[t]he mother made no sustained
progress in her services to address her identified parental deficiencies.” The trial court
found the mother currently unfit to parent the child, explaining the mother’s “testimony,
the testimony of other witnesses, and the exhibits demonstrate she is living with
3 Zoom is an online platform that provides audio and video conferencing.
-8- No. 83708-7-I/9
untreated substance abuse that is affecting her decisions and ability to fulfill her
obligations.” In addition, the court found little likelihood that conditions would be
remedied in the child’s near future.
The trial court found that all services were expressly and understandably offered
or provided to the father but the father completed no services to address his identified
parental deficiencies. The trial court found that the father was unfit to parent the child
and that there was little likelihood that conditions would be remedied so that the child
could be returned to the father in the near future. The court explained:
The Court finds from the Father’s testimony and the evidence at trial that he is living with untreated substance abuse disorder. . . . Untreated substance abuse impacts his ability to parent and would negatively impact [R.L.S.’s] emotional, physical, mental, and developmental needs. [R.L.S.] has special needs that his father is not aware of and is unprepared to address. . . . The Father has not remedied his parental deficiencies, nor has he demonstrated that he is capable of safely parenting the child and providing for the child’s needs. The Father is also unable to provide those things to him due to his ongoing unaddressed substance use, unaddressed domestic violence and lack of developmentally appropriate parenting knowledge.
The trial court found continuation of the parent-child relationship diminished
R.L.S.’s prospects for adoption into his current family where his siblings live and that
termination was in the best interest of R.L.S.
Both parents appeal. 4
II
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights by considering
“whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact by clear, cogent,
and convincing evidence.” In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466, 477, 379
4 We consolidated the appeals under No. 83708-7-I.
-9- No. 83708-7-I/10
P.3d 75 (2016). “‘Clear, cogent and convincing’” means the facts shown are highly
probable. In re Welfare of M.R.H., 145 Wn. App. 10, 24, 188 P.3d 510 (2008) (quoting
In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 141, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995)). Termination
proceedings are “highly fact-specific” and we defer to “the trial court’s determinations of
witness credibility and the persuasiveness of the evidence.” K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d at 477.
We review de novo whether the trial court’s findings of fact support its conclusions of
law. K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d at 477.
Before parental rights can be terminated, the Department must prove the six
elements of RCW 13.34.180(1) by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. RCW
13.34.190(1)(a)(i). At issue here is the fourth element, which requires that the
Department provide all court-ordered and necessary services reasonably available and
capable of correcting parental deficiencies. RCW 13.34.180(1)(d). “Necessary
services” are “services ‘needed to address a condition that precludes reunification of the
parent and child.’” K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d at 480 (quoting In re Dependency of A.M.M., 182
Wn. App. 776, 793, 332 P.3d 500 (2014)). The Department must “identify a parent’s
specific needs and provide services to meet those needs.” In re Parental Rights to I.M.-
M., 196 Wn. App. 914, 924, 385 P.3d 268 (2016). If a claim is based on the
Department’s alleged failure to provide a service, “termination is appropriate if the
service would not have remedied the parental deficiency in the foreseeable future.” In
re Parental Rights of D.H., 195 Wn.2d 710, 719, 464 P.3d 215 (2020).
Because the parents each raise arguments related to RCW 13.34.180(d), we
address each individually.
-10- No. 83708-7-I/11
The mother asserts that a psychological evaluation with parenting component
was a necessary service and the Department failed to meet its burden under RCW
13.34.180(1)(d) when it failed to offer a referral. We disagree.
One of the mother’s identified parental deficiencies was untreated mental health
issues. The mother was court ordered to obtain a mental health evaluation and follow
through with any treatment recommendations. The mother did complete a mental
health evaluation in 2019 at Catholic Community Services. The evaluation
recommended individual counseling and she had two sessions in Yakima but she did
not continue with the sessions. The Department repeatedly provided the mother with
information for walk-in options for mental health services including those at Valley
Cities, BHR, and Sound Behavioral Health. But the mother never returned to mental
health treatment and did not complete the recommendations from her assessment.
The mother points to a service letter from August 2020 where Holmes wrote,
“Due to ongoing concerns regarding your mental health, the Department is
recommending a psychological evaluation with parenting component. Please let me
know if you would like for me to make a referral for you for this service.” A
psychological evaluation was never ordered in R.L.S.’s dependency. See RCW
13.34.180(1)(d) (Department must offer court-ordered services). It was also never
raised in the permanency plans for R.L.S. or the dependency review hearings. This
-11- No. 83708-7-I/12
notation in a service letter was the only reference to a psychological evaluation in
R.L.S.’s dependency. 5
Substantial evidence supports that the Department offered the mother court-
ordered mental health services needed to address her untreated mental health issues.
And a psychological evaluation would have required mutual agreement between the
mother, the court, and the Department. See RCW 13.34.370 (evaluations shall be
performed by evaluators who are mutually agreed upon by the court, Department, and
the parents’ counsel).
The Department argues that a psychological evaluation was not a necessary
service capable of correcting the mother’s parental deficiencies within R.L.S.’s near
future. We agree.
Even where the Department inexcusably fails to offer a service to a willing
parent, 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. In re
Welfare of Hall, 99 Wn.2d 842, 850-51, 664 P.2d 1245 (1983).
Here, the trial court concluded that the mother would need at least a year to treat
her mental illness and substance abuse disorder before addressing her parenting
deficiencies. As a three-year-old, R.L.S.’s “near future” was approximately one month.
“Even if the mother were to fully engage in her services today, she could not make
enough progress to eliminate her parental deficiencies and be a safe parent for
5 On September 28, 2021, while the mother agreed to an order of dependency pertaining to M.S.,
she did not agree to a psychological evaluation and it was set for disposition. At the time of trial in R.L.S.’s case, the mother and her attorney had only recently agreed that she would engage in this service and agreed to a provider in M.S.’s case. See RCW 13.34.370.
-12- No. 83708-7-I/13
reunification with [R.L.S.] within a year.” There is substantial evidence in the record to
support this conclusion.
The Department provided the mother with various forms of treatment to resolve
her identified parenting deficiencies, and the services were ultimately unsuccessful.
The mother made minimal progress in addressing her substance use, mental health,
and inadequate parenting skills. There was testimony that R.L.S. needed immediate
stability and permanence. R.L.S. was three years old at the time of trial and had been
living with his maternal aunt for his entire life.
Holmes testified that the mother would need at least a year to remedy her
substance use and untreated mental health parental deficiencies. And if the mother
was sober, she would need at least six months to engage in a parenting service to
remedy her deficiency of lacking understanding of R.L.S.’s needs. In addition, at the
time of trial, the mother was facing serious criminal charges that would affect her ability
to parent R.L.S. in the future. The mother also testified that she was applying to start
substance abuse treatment at Evergreen and the treatment could last between six and
nine months.
There is no evidence in the record that completion of a psychological evaluation
would be capable of resolving the mother’s parental deficiencies within the foreseeable
future.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that the Department proved by clear,
cogent, and convincing evidence that all necessary services capable of correcting the
mother’s parenting deficiencies in the foreseeable future were offered or provided.
-13- No. 83708-7-I/14
The father asserts that the Department did not reasonably offer or provide a
parenting evaluation. We disagree.
The trial court found that all services ordered under RCW 13.34.136 had been
expressly and understandably offered or provided to the father. The father asserts that
he was not offered or provided services for 12 months following the dispositional order.
The father’s argument discounts that the Department offered him ample services
throughout the length of the case, all of which he ignored or refused.
The father had an opportunity to engage in services before, during, and after his
time in custody. Before the dependency was entered, the Department requested and
the father agreed to submit to a one-time UA; however, he did not show up. While he
was in custody, Holmes found a provider willing to complete a domestic violence
assessment for the father at the MRJC. The father did not engage in this service. Once
released, the Department re-referred the father for a domestic violence assessment.
The father never completed this assessment, telling the court that he knew he was court
ordered to obtain it but he “wasn’t planning on doing it.”
The father did not agree to complete a parenting assessment in the dependency,
it was separately ordered at a disposition hearing on February 21, 2019. While the
father was in custody, the Department was unable to find a provider willing to complete
a parenting assessment because it was partially dependent on the correctional facility
allowing R.L.S. to visit the facility. But in January 2020, once he was released, Holmes
found and referred the father for a parenting assessment with Dr. Washington-Harvey.
At trial, when asked if he intended on engaging in the parenting assessment, the father
-14- No. 83708-7-I/15
told the court “nope,” “I already told them from the jump I wasn’t gonna engage in their
services.”
The Department provided the father with information on where he could go for
random UAs, and made referrals, even though he repeatedly told them he would not do
them. The father acknowledged that he received the information but “told them from the
start that I was not taking . . . UA[s].”
Through services letters, the Department provided the names and locations of
places where he could obtain a drug and alcohol assessment. The father
acknowledged receiving information on how to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation. He
testified that he might have agreed to services but he “wasn’t doing it.” The Department
referred the father to all court-ordered services but the father was not willing to engage
in any of them.
The father also asserts that the trial court erred by applying a rebuttable
presumption that the Department offered all necessary services when he wasn’t offered
the parenting evaluation for 12 months, the referral expired after 6 months, and the
Department never re-offered it.
Here, the trial court found the rebuttable presumption in RCW 13.34.180(1)(e)
applied “because, in the more than 12 months that [R.L.S.] has been in care, there has
been a failure of the father to substantially improve any of his identified parental
deficiencies and the Department has offered all of the necessary services.” “Where the
record establishes that the offer of services would be futile, the trial court can make a
finding that the Department has offered all reasonable services.” M.R.H., 145 Wn. App.
at 25. Substantial evidence supports this finding.
-15- No. 83708-7-I/16
By the time the referral for the parenting assessment expired, the father had
been in the community for at least a year. 6 In this time, while the father had been
provided with information and referrals for every court-ordered service, he refused to
engage in any services. While the record establishes that the offer of services would be
futile, the Department did try to work with the father’s Department of Public Defense
social worker and find a new referral for the parenting assessment in summer 2021
when the father was again in custody.
Finally, even where the Department 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. Hall, 99 Wn.2d at 850-51.
Holmes testified that the father would need a significant period, at least a year, to
remedy his parental deficiencies. And that, based on what Holmes knew of the father, it
was unlikely he would engage in the services to overcome his deficiencies. At the time
of trial, the father was facing serious criminal charges that would affect his ability to
parent R.L.S. in the future. The father acknowledged that he was facing 250 months if
he was found guilty.
Again, at the time of trial, R.L.S. was three years old and had lived with his
maternal aunt for his entire life. R.L.S.’s near future was approximately one month.
The father had not engaged in any services in the three years that R.L.S. was in
dependency despite being out in the community for two of those three years.
6 Benavides was assigned the case in September 2020 and testified that the referral to Dr.
Washington-Harvey was still active when he started. The father was released from custody in September 2019 and was in the community until June 2021.
-16- No. 83708-7-I/17
Substantial evidence supports the finding that the Department proved by clear,
cogent, and convincing evidence that all court-ordered services capable of correcting
the father’s parenting deficiencies in the foreseeable future were offered or provided. 7
III
The father argues the trial court erred and violated his Fifth Amendment right to
silence when it drew negative inferences and relied on them to terminate his parental
rights. He asserts that the trial court’s finding that he was currently unfit to parent
resulted from the trial court drawing a negative inference about his current substance
abuse. We disagree.
Under both our state and federal constitutions, “[n]o person shall be compelled in
any criminal case to give evidence against himself.” W ASH. CONST. art. I, § 9; U.S.
CONST. amend. V (“No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself.”). 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).
Our Supreme Court recently addressed the father’s exact argument in In re
Dependency of A.M.F., 1 Wn.3d 407, 526 P.3d 32 (2023). In A.M.F., the mother, Y.R.,
was facing criminal charges at the time of trial. Upon the advice of counsel, Y.R. did not
7 The father also asserts that the Department made little effort to facilitate visitation between him
and R.L.S. But Washington courts have held that “visitation” on its own is not a service that must be provided under RCW 13.34.180(1)(d). In re Dependency of T.H., 139 Wn. App. 784, 792, 162 P.3d 1141 (2007).
-17- No. 83708-7-I/18
answer questions about the last time she had used illegal drugs. A.M.F., 1 Wn.3d at
411. The trial court warned Y.R. that it might draw a negative inference from her silence
and, subsequently, did draw that negative inference. A.M.F., 1 Wn.3d at 411. Based
on that and other evidence presented, the trial court found the Department met the
statutory factors and granted the termination petition. A.M.F., 1 Wn.3d at 411.
The Supreme Court held that 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.
A.M.F., 1 Wn.3d at 417 (citing Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 317-18, 96 S. Ct.
1551, 47 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1976)). Accordingly, because the trial court’s judgment was not
based merely on Y.R.’s silence, the inference did not violate the Fifth Amendment.
A.M.F., 1 Wn.3d at 417.
The father asserts that there are critical differences between this case and
A.M.F. because in A.M.F. there were other indicia of the parent’s drug use including
testimony from the social worker, the parent’s father, the CASA, and the parent’s own
statements. In re Dependency of A.M.F., 23 Wn. App. 2d 135, 143, 514 P.3d 755
(2022), aff’d, 1 Wn.3d 407.
Here, while the trial court indicated that it could draw a negative inference from
the father’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment, the record does not reflect that the trial
court actually did draw a negative inference. And, significantly, the trial court’s
determination that the father had ongoing untreated substance abuse disorder was not
based merely on the father’s silence.
-18- No. 83708-7-I/19
Holmes testified that in conversations with the father, he told her he had a long
history of substance use and a long family history of substance use. During his
testimony, the father admitted that he became addicted to Percocet 8 after a 2007
prescription. He asserted that he got off Percocet by going “cold turkey.” But the father
also testified that he had used Percocet eight to nine months before trial in this case.
The father told the court that he was unwilling to engage in services because he “was
on drugs” during the dependency. The father testified to the foregoing without asserting
his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Further, the father also had identified parental deficiencies of untreated domestic
violence and inadequate parenting skills. And while services were offered or provided
by the Department for the father to address these deficiencies, he refused to engage in
any of them.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that the Department proved by clear,
cogent, and convincing evidence that the father was currently unfit to parent. And
because the trial court’s judgment was not based merely on the father’s silence, any
inference did not violate the Fifth Amendment.
We affirm.
WE CONCUR:
8 Percocet is a brand named prescription drug containing a combination of acetaminophen and
oxycodone, an opioid pain medication.
-19-