In The Interest Of: A.s.a.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: January 22, 2024
• Docket: 84938-7
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE In the Matter of the Interest of: No. 84938-7-I

A.S.A. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

DWYER, J. — A.A. appeals a juvenile court decision granting his

daughter’s child in need of services (CHINS) petition for out-of-home placement.

He contends the order violated due process, the court failed to address his

placement request, and the court failed to file a written statement of reasons for

granting the petition. Because the challenged order has expired, we dismiss the

appeal as moot.

I

A.A. is the father of 15-year-old A.S.A. On November 7, 2022, A.S.A. filed

a CHINS petition requesting placement outside his home. A.S.A. asked to be

placed with Linda Zemler, who had previously served as A.S.A.’s mentor through

an after-school program. A.S.A. lived with Zemler while the petition was pending.

A.A. objected to the petition in its entirety and stated that he wanted A.S.A.

returned to his home. A.A. also opposed A.S.A’s request for placement with

Zemler and requested that A.S.A. be placed with her paternal aunt. No. 84938-7-I/2

On January 19, 2023, following a fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court

granted A.S.A.’s request for a 90-day out-of-home placement with Zemler. The

order specified that a review hearing “shall be held” on March 30, 2023. A.A.

appealed the CHINS order. On August 3, 2023, the juvenile court entered an

order continuing out-of-home placement “until 9-26-23, at which time it will expire

and the minor shall be returned home absent other court order to the contrary.”

II

RCW 13.32A.190(3) states that “[o]ut-of-home placement may not be

continued past one hundred eighty days from the day the review hearing

commenced.” Here, the juvenile court’s statutory authority over the CHINS

matter ended on September 26, 2023, 180 days after the scheduled review

hearing on March 30, 2023. Accordingly, this appeal is moot. See In re

Dependency of L.C.S., 200 Wn.2d 91, 98, 514 P.3d 644 (2022) (a case is moot

when the appellate court can no longer provide effective relief).

We do not typically review moot cases. Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103

Wn.2d 249, 253, 692 P.2d 793 (1984). However, we may review an otherwise

moot case if it presents an issue of “continuing and substantial public

importance.” In re Dependency of T.P., 12 Wn. App. 2d 538, 545, 458 P.3d 825

(2020). “To determine whether the contested issue is of substantial and

continuing public importance, we consider whether ‘(1) the issue is of a public or

private nature; (2) whether an authoritative determination is desirable to provide

future guidance to public officers; and (3) whether the issue is likely to recur.’”

2 No. 84938-7-I/3

T.P., 12 Wn. App. 2d at 545 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re

Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884, 892, 93 P.3d 124 (2004)).

The father acknowledges that the CHINS order has expired, but argues

that we should consider his appeal as a matter of continuing and substantial

public interest. We disagree. The appeal is more private than public, dealing

with fact-specific matters in this case. And although it is possible that the

challenged issues may recur, the current statutes and applicable case law give

sufficient guidance to public officers. Notably, it is well settled that a CHINS

petition does not implicate the same due process rights furnished in shelter care

and dependency hearings. In re Sumey, 94 Wn.2d 757, 762, 621 P.2d 108

(1980).

We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot.

Dismissed.

WE CONCUR: