Welfare Of O.C. And D.C.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: August 1, 2023
• Docket: 56609-5
• Status: Published

Opinion

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may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion.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 For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential (unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.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/. Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

August 1, 2023

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II In the Matter of the Welfare of: No. 56609-5-II

O.C. and D.C., (consolidated with Nos.: 56619-2-II, 56612-5-II, 56639-7-II, 56642-7-II, 56649-4-II)

Minor children. PUBLISHED OPINION

GLASGOW, C.J.—Five-year-old OC went missing, and the Grays Harbor County Sheriff’s

Office filed several emergency motions, seeking access to dependency and juvenile court records

related to OC and two of her siblings, BB-P and DC, in order to determine whether those records

contained any information that might help locate OC. The juvenile court granted the motions.

OC’s mother, JB, appeals the orders shortening time, ordering disclosure to the sheriff’s

office, and unsealing juvenile court files for BB-P, DC, and OC. The mother1 argues that the

sheriff’s office lacked standing to request access to the records and that the juvenile court erred

when it granted the motions.

We hold that the juvenile court did not err when it ordered the release of dependency court

files to the sheriff’s office. However, the juvenile court abused its discretion when it used language

that purported to unseal those records. We reverse the portion of the court’s order unsealing BB-

P’s, DC’s, and OC’s juvenile court records, but we otherwise affirm.

1 We refer to JB as “the mother,” AC as the “father,” and JB and AC collectively as “the parents,” throughout. For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56609-5-II

We remand for the trial court to amend its order removing any reference to unsealing OC’s,

DC’s, and BB-P’s dependency records. We note that to the extent the dependency court files

contain transcripts of dependency hearings, those transcripts are not confidential or sealed. Finally,

we decline the mother’s invitation to adopt procedures for juvenile courts to address requests for

their dependency court files in the future.

FACTS

I. BACKGROUND

A. Prior Proceedings

JB is the mother of BB-P2 (born in 2012), DC (born in 2015), OC (born in 2016), and JC

(born in 2019). AC is the father of DC, OC, and JC. The Department of Children, Youth, and

Families has been involved with the family since April 2013. Since 2013, the Department has

received 11 intakes regarding the family, 8 of which have been screened in for allegations of

domestic violence, physical abuse, parental drug use, and medical neglect. When an intake is

“screened in,” the Department conducts an investigation based on the allegations in the intake.

Clerk’s Papers (CP) (OC)3 at 5. The Department does not followup with an investigation when an

intake has been “screened out.” CP (OC) at 5.

2 The parties’ briefing and juvenile court orders refer to BB. To better reflect the initials and for consistency with our commissioner’s ruling, we use the initials BB-P. 3 The mother designated separate clerk’s papers for OC and DC. Citation to OC’s documents will be referenced as “CP (OC).” References to DC’s documents will be designated as “CP (DC).”

2 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

In 2014, the mother participated in dependency proceedings for BB-P and BB-P was placed

in out-of-home care. The mother engaged in services for substance abuse and domestic violence.

In 2015, BB-P returned to the mother’s care and the dependency case was dismissed.

DC had a developmental disability caused by a rare genetic syndrome that requires daily

injections. DC was legally blind and did not sleep or eat well. In June 2017, the Department

received an intake that the mother had unaddressed mental health issues and she was not accessing

services for one-year-old DC. The intake was screened out.

One month later, the Department received an emergent intake that DC was not receiving

proper medical care. The intake alleged that DC was not receiving her medication. The intake also

alleged instances of domestic violence in the home and that the father used methamphetamine.

After an investigation, the Department filed dependency petitions for BB-P, DC, and OC.

DC and OC were placed in out-of-home care, and BB-P was placed with his biological father.

Both parents participated in various services, including chemical dependency services, domestic

violence services, and parenting education. The parents also participated in medical training on the

proper administration of DC’s medication. Because the parents engaged with services and made

progress, the Department returned DC and OC to their care in 2019 and closed their dependency

cases. BB-P remained with his father.

In January 2021, the Department received an intake that stated OC had scratches and

bruising on her face. The Department screened in the intake for an investigation, but both parents

refused to cooperate.

In November 2021, the Department received three separate referrals in two days about the

family. Specifically, there had been a fire at the family home for which emergency services were

3 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

not called and the family continued to reside in the home despite an insurance agent advising it

was unsafe to do so. These referrals were screened out.

B. OC’s Disappearance

The following facts are reflected in a sworn 2021 dependency petition for OC and a sworn

declaration from the sheriff’s office. CP (OC) at 1-6, 12-14. In December 2021, the Department

received an intake from OC’s school. The mother reported to the school that OC had started a fire

at the family home sometime in November 2021. School staff then visited the home on three

occasions and did not see OC. When school staff asked DC about OC’s whereabouts, DC replied,

“[T]here is no [OC].” CP (OC) at 3. The school staff then contacted law enforcement, who began

to investigate.

The parents told law enforcement that OC was with her paternal grandfather. However,

when officers contacted the grandfather, he reported that he had not seen OC since Christmas 2020.

The parents later reported to a police officer that they had “lost track” of OC between 5 and 10

days prior, in late November 2021, and the father then filed a formal missing person report in early

December 2021. CP (OC) at 3-4.

Police arrested the parents for obstruction of a law enforcement investigation. Law

enforcement also immediately placed OC’s siblings in protective custody, and the Department

filed new dependency petitions for DC, OC, and JC.4

The sheriff’s office interviewed BB-P and DC as part of their investigation. DC stated that

OC had started the house fire with the mother’s torch and was subsequently beaten for it. DC also

reported that OC was “under her mother’s bed and in the woods.” CP (OC) at 3. BB-P reported

4 JC’s dependency petition is not part of the record before this court.

4 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

that all four children were home at the time of the fire and that everyone made it out of the house

except OC. BB-P additionally reported that the mother physically abused OC and JC and that OC

was kept in a locked “cell” underneath the stairs. CP (OC) at 3. DC confirmed BB-P’s statements

regarding the mother’s physical abuse of OC. DC further stated that OC and JC were not safe in

the mother’s care.

The sheriff’s office obtained a warrant to search the family property for OC. The sheriff’s

office also contacted known relatives and former foster parents regarding OC’s whereabouts. No

one had information about OC.

II. EMERGENCY MOTIONS

A. Motions

The sheriff’s office filed emergency motions in juvenile court under DC’s and OC’s open

and closed dependency docket numbers: an ex parte motion to shorten time and a motion to unseal

and disclose records. The trial court had before it the sworn dependency petition describing the

facts as recited above.

The sheriff’s office asked the juvenile court to “unseal records and provide such records,

court filings and transcripts” from two of BB-P’s closed dependency cases “for investigation

purposes[] only.” CP (OC) at 9. The sheriff’s office stated that it was investigating “both the

abandonment of the child [DC] and the whereabouts of the child [OC].” CP (OC) at 10. It also

asserted, “Time is crucial and of the essence in obtaining all possible information for the

investigation by law enforcement to locate [OC].” CP (DC) at 10. The sheriff’s office cited RCW

13.50.010, which provides that records may be released for the purpose of investigating “‘child

5 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

fatality, child physical abuse, and criminal neglect cases for the well-being of the child.’” Id.

(quoting RCW 13.50.010(18)).

The sheriff’s office supported its motion to unseal the records of all three children with the

declaration of an officer who stated, “[DC] provided information . . . implicating her parents in

[OC]’s disappearance.” CP (OC) at 12. The declaration described evidence that DC had been

deprived of essential medications for several months and asserted this constituted criminal

abandonment of a dependent person. The declaration also emphasized that OC was missing and

no family members could give information about her whereabouts. Time was of the essence

because there was still hope that OC might be found alive and unharmed.

B. Hearing

1. The parties’ arguments

At a hearing, the sheriff’s office clarified that it was seeking the prior dependency records

involving BB-P, DC, and OC from 2014 and 2017. The sheriff’s office stated that it was seeking

records under an order shortening time because OC had “not been located yet,” so the search for

her was urgent, and DC had a pending “abandonment criminal proceeding.” Verbatim Rep. of

Proc. (VRP) at 4. The sheriff’s office explained that it anticipated the dependency records could

lead to “enough information to research further people, places, and events” that could lead to OC’s

location. VRP at 16. The sheriff’s office confirmed that the records would be used for investigative

purposes only and would not be shared with third parties.

The Department did not oppose the motion to shorten time. It also stated that it intended to

either join the sheriff’s office motion to release records or file its own motion. The Department

6 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

explained that the sheriff’s office was a juvenile justice or care agency, so it was “a proper agency

to release records to.” VRP at 5.

The mother opposed the sheriff’s office motions, arguing that the sheriff’s office did not

have standing. She contended that the statutory authority referenced by the sheriff’s office

pertained to agency documents held by the Department, not juvenile court records. Finally, she

asserted that the sheriff’s office did not show how the sealed court records would assist with

finding OC.

2. Juvenile court’s ruling

The juvenile court found that it could address the merits of the motion to disclose the court

records to the sheriff’s office because the Department was joining the motions and the motions

were in OC’s best interest. The court granted the motion to shorten time because OC’s

disappearance was an “emergent situation.” VRP at 7. The court confirmed that the Department

had verbally joined the sheriff’s motion, and it directed the Department to file a written motion as

well.5

The juvenile court found that the sheriff’s office “is a participant in the juvenile justice or

care system” and therefore properly filed the motions to release and unseal the dependency records.

CP (OC) at 16. The court found the request “for the release and unsealing of records and official

juvenile court files, as defined by [RCW] 13.50.010(1)(c) & (d), [was] proper” because the

sheriff’s office was “investigating a case involving a missing and vulnerable child, [OC],” and the

records from OC, DC, and BB-P’s prior dependency cases were “reasonably certain to reveal

relevant information necessary to enable law enforcement to locate [OC].” Id. Even though the

5 There is no evidence in our record that the Department ever filed this written motion.

7 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

court mentioned “unsealing,” the juvenile court made it clear in its oral ruling that the relevant

dependency records could not be disclosed outside of the Attorney General’s Office and the

sheriff’s office, and they could only be used in the investigation searching for OC.

The court’s written order, entered under OC’s open dependency cause number, stated that

it applied to the “records, juvenile court files, and hearing transcripts” of all three children’s open

and closed dependency cases. CP (OC) at 16. The court thus ordered “the records, juvenile court

files, and hearing transcripts” be “unsealed (if sealed) and copies provided to the Attorney

General’s [O]ffice for delivery to the Grays Harbor County Sheriff’s Office for the purpose of

furthering the investigation of the missing minor child, [OC].” Id. The order further provided that

the “records shall not be used or shared for any other purpose than the investigation of the location

of [OC], unless so ordered by the Court.”6 Id. The court also entered orders shortening time under

both OC’s and DC’s open dependency case numbers.

The mother then sought discretionary review of the order to unseal records under OC’s

open and closed dependency cases. She also sought discretionary review of the order to shorten

time under OC’s and DC’s open and closed dependency cases. We consolidated the mother’s six

notices of discretionary review and granted review of the “unsealing issue and all related records

release issues” pursuant to RAP 2.3(b)(3) and 2.3(e).

ANALYSIS

I. STANDING

The parties do not dispute that the sheriff’s office lacked standing to bring its motions in

OC’s and DC’s open and closed dependency cases. The parties also do not dispute that the

6 This provision is not challenged on appeal and remains in full force and effect.

8 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

Department has standing as a party to OC’s and DC’s dependency cases. The parties dispute

whether the Department actually joined in the sheriff’s office motions.

Here, the record shows that the Department made a joint oral motion with the sheriff’s

office for the release and unsealing of BB-P’s, DC’s, and OC’s records. And the juvenile court

treated the motion as the Department’s motion. Because the Department had standing and made a

motion for the release of records, the juvenile court did not err in addressing the merits of the

motions.

II. AUTHORITY TO RELEASE AGENCY RECORDS AND UNSEAL COURT RECORDS

A. Law Governing Juvenile Justice and Care Agency Records Including Child Dependency Court Files

1. Chapter 13.50 RCW presumption of confidentiality

Chapter 13.50 RCW governs the release of records by juvenile justice or care agencies,

including the disclosure of juvenile court records. The procedures outlined in the statute are an

exception to Washington Constitution article I, section 10, which provides for the open

administration of justice. In re Dependency of E.H., 191 Wn.2d 872, 897, 427 P.3d 587 (2018)

(“article I, section 10 does not apply to juvenile records”); State v. S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d 408, 422,

352 P.3d 749 (2015). Because the statute contravenes the constitutional presumption of openness,

the statute is carefully drawn to balance the juvenile’s interest in confidentiality with the public’s

interest in accountability and oversight. See S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d at 432.

Juvenile justice or care agencies include law enforcement, juvenile and superior courts, the

Attorney General’s Office, and the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, among other

entities. RCW 13.50.010(1)(b); In re Dependency of G.A.R., 137 Wn. App. 1, 12, 150 P.3d 643

(2007). Chapter 13.50 RCW provides the exclusive means of obtaining access to juvenile justice

9 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

or care agency records, which are otherwise confidential. Deer v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.,

122 Wn. App. 84, 92, 93 P.3d 195 (2004).

“Records” covered by chapter 13.50 RCW include “the official juvenile court file, the

social file, and records of any other juvenile justice or care agency in the case.” RCW

13.50.010(1)(d). Juvenile records that do not relate to the commission of juvenile offenses, like

child dependency and parental termination court records, are governed by RCW 13.50.100 and

“shall be confidential.” RCW 13.50.100(2). Therefore, such records are presumptively sealed.

G.A.R., 137 Wn. App. at 11. Each juvenile justice or care agency must “implement procedures

consistent with the provisions of this chapter to facilitate inquiries concerning records.” RCW

13.50.010(4).

2. Exceptions allowing the release of confidential records

Under RCW 13.50.100, a juvenile justice or care agency record that is otherwise sealed

and confidential may nevertheless be released to certain entities under prescribed circumstances.

State v. Sanchez, 177 Wn.2d 835, 849-50, 306 P.3d 935 (2013). Relevant here, RCW 13.50.100(3)

provides that such records “may be released to other participants in the juvenile justice or care

system only when an investigation or case involving the juvenile in question is being pursued by

the other participant or when that other participant is assigned the responsibility of supervising

the juvenile.” (Emphasis added.)

Additionally, RCW 13.50.010(18) provides:

For the purpose of investigating . . . child fatality, child physical abuse, and criminal neglect cases for the well-being of the child, the [Department] may disclose only those confidential child welfare records that pertain to or may assist with such an investigation pursuant to RCW 26.44.180 and 26.44.175. The records retain their confidentiality pursuant to this chapter and federal law and cannot be further disclosed except as allowed under this chapter and federal law.

10 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

Thus, even when juvenile justice or care agency records, including child dependency court files,

are shared for purposes of investigation, they cannot be further disclosed except as allowed by

state or federal law.

There are several other circumstances where the legislature has authorized limited

disclosure of juvenile justice or care agency records, including child dependency court records.

For example, such records may be released for medical treatment and research purposes. RCW

13.50.010(8) permits the release of records to “any clinic, hospital, or agency which has the subject

person under care or treatment,” and to “individuals or agencies, including juvenile justice

advisory committees . . . engaged in legitimate research for educational, scientific, or public

purposes.” In addition, the “administrative office of the courts shall maintain . . . cop[ies] of all

records . . . for research purposes.” RCW 13.50.010(12). Governmental agencies may access

“juvenile records . . . for the purpose of carrying out research or data gathering functions.” RCW

13.50.280(1). And, prosecutors and criminal justice agencies have access to “sealed juvenile

records information.” RCW 13.50.260(8)(c)-(d).

Although juvenile dependency court files are confidential and sealed, dependency hearings

and transcripts of those hearings are presumptively open to the public. RCW 13.34.115(1); see

S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d at 431 (“The sealing statute does not remove juvenile proceedings from public

observation.”). Parties to a dependency hearing may move to close the hearing from the public,

and the juvenile court shall close the hearing if it is determined to be in the best interest of the

child. RCW 13.34.115(2). When a hearing has been closed, the juvenile court may also seal any

recordings or transcripts of the hearing.

11 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

3. Statutory interpretation principles

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Med. Ctr.

v. Dep’t of Revenue, 196 Wn.2d 1, 7, 468 P.3d 1056 (2020). “The object of statutory interpretation

is to ascertain and carry out the legislature’s intent.” Sanchez, 177 Wn.2d at 842. Courts derive

legislative intent from “the plain language of the statute, considering the text of the provision, the

context of the statute, related provisions, amendments, and the statutory scheme as a whole.”

PeaceHealth, 196 Wn.2d at 8. Further, courts will “employ traditional rules of grammar” to discern

a statute’s plain language. Id. If there are any undefined terms, the term’s plain and ordinary

meaning applies. Clark County v. Portland Vancouver Junction R.R., 17 Wn. App. 2d 289, 295,

485 P.3d 985 (2021).

B. Authority to Release Dependency Records

1. OC’s records

RCW 13.50.100(3) allows juvenile courts to disclose records to other participants in the

juvenile justice system, which include law enforcement, “when an investigation or case involving

the juvenile in question is being pursued by the other participant.” (Emphasis added.) The mother

does not dispute that the trial court properly ordered OC’s dependency records to be shared with

the sheriff’s office pursuant to RCW 13.50.100(3). We agree.

RCW 13.50.100(3) plainly allows a juvenile court to release records “to other participants

in the juvenile justice or care system,” including law enforcement, when they are conducting an

investigation involving the juvenile whose records are being sought. Here, the juvenile court, the

Department, and the sheriff’s office are juvenile justice or care agencies. RCW 13.50.010(1)(b).

At the time the sheriff’s office requested OC’s records, there was an active investigation involving

12 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

OC. Therefore, we hold the juvenile court properly ordered the release of OC’s records to the

sheriff’s office.

2. DC’s and BB-P’s records

The mother challenges the release of DC’s and BB-P’s juvenile court records to the

sheriff’s office because, she argues, there must be an active investigation involving the specific

juvenile for which records are requested in order for one juvenile justice or care agency to release

records to another. She contends that the juvenile court erred in releasing DC’s and BB-P’s records

because the court’s “oral ruling and written order make clear that the release of records in this case

pertained only to the . . . investigation of [OC].” Br. of Pet’r at 33. She also contends there was not

substantial evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s finding that information in OC’s

siblings’ records was reasonably likely to assist in the investigation to locate OC. We disagree.

a. Scope of an investigation “involving” the juvenile in question

RCW 13.50.100(3) allows juvenile courts to disclose records to other participants in the

juvenile justice system, including law enforcement, “when an investigation or case involving the

juvenile in question is being pursued by the other participant.” (Emphasis added.) As the parties

acknowledged at oral argument, “the juvenile in question” is the juvenile whose records are being

requested.

The parties dispute whether the investigation of OC, a missing child, sufficiently

“involved” OC’s siblings to warrant release of their juvenile court dependency records to the

sheriff’s office. The mother asserts that the legislature’s use of “the juvenile” and “the juvenile in

question” “signifies that only one juvenile can be at issue at a time under RCW 13.50.100(3),” and

the exception to the confidentiality requirement does not apply “to multiple juveniles who might

13 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

happen to be tangentially involved or who might be subject to other investigations.” Br. of Pet’r at

32. Therefore, according to the mother, only OC’s records may be released as OC is both “the

juvenile in question” and the juvenile being investigated. Br. of Pet’r at 32-33.

In contrast, the Department advocates for a broader reading and asserts that because the

legislature referred to an investigation “involving” the juvenile whose records are being sought,

rather than requiring that juvenile to be the “subject of” the investigation, the “[l]egislature

intended to authorize the release of records to a law enforcement agency when the law enforcement

agency is pursuing an investigation or case that broadly involves the juvenile in question.” Br. of

Resp’t at 23.

We conclude that although a missing child’s siblings may not be sufficiently involved in

every case, DC and BB-P were sufficiently involved in the investigation of OC’s whereabouts in

this case to warrant the release of their records to the sheriff’s office under RCW 13.50.100(3).

b. Plain meaning and context of the statute

Neither “involving” nor “the juvenile in question” is defined by the relevant chapter. See

RCW 13.50.010, .100. When terms are undefined, we apply the terms’ plain and ordinary meaning.

Portland R.R., 17 Wn. App. 2d at 295. Plain meaning may be discerned from the text of the

provision and context of the statute. PeaceHealth, 196 Wn.2d at 7-8.

The plain language of the statute states that a juvenile justice or care agency’s records, here

the juvenile court’s records, may be released “only when an investigation or case involving the

juvenile in question is being pursued.” RCW 13.50.100(3). “Records” is defined as “the official

juvenile court file, the social file, and records of any other juvenile justice or care agency in the

14 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

case.” RCW 13.50.010(1)(d). The “official juvenile court file” includes the juvenile court’s legal

file containing a petition or information. RCW 13.50.010(1)(c).

The only reasonable reading of the statute is that the “juvenile in question” is the juvenile

whose records are being sought. The issue is whether the investigation of OC’s disappearance and

the search for OC sufficiently involved OC’s siblings.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “involve” as “to draw in as a participant,” “to relate closely,”

or “to have an effect on.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1191 (2002). As

older siblings that were also in the mother’s care and were present when the family’s home burned,

DC and BB-P were witnesses to events leading up to OC’s disappearance. And because they were

children in the same household during OC’s childhood, DC’s and BB-P’s prior dependency

records likely included information about the family’s history, relationships, behavioral patterns,

and circumstances that were also present for, or had an effect on, OC. For example, DC’s and BB-

P’s records could include the names of people that OC spent time around, information about the

family’s dynamics, locations where the family previously lived or visited, or other details about

their family life that could provide leads in OC’s investigation. The records might contain

information about how reliable the children were as reporters of what occurred in their home. This

information could be particularly helpful in light of the parents’ apparent indifference about OC’s

disappearance and their obstruction of the investigation. For these reasons, there was sufficient

evidence to support the trial court’s finding that information in DC’s and BB-P’s records was

reasonably certain to reveal information relevant to the sheriff’s office investigation.

The concurrence/dissent expresses concern that this analysis involves speculation about

what information contained in DC’s and BB-P’s juvenile court files could be helpful to the

15 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

investigation. Of course, without prior access to the requested records, law enforcement must

speculate about what helpful information the requested records could contain. In these

circumstances, the trial court certainly had discretion to conduct an in camera review of the

requested records to determine whether they contained information that could be helpful in the

search for OC. But law enforcement officers conducting the investigation were in a far better

position to determine whether information in the requested records provided further avenues for

investigation into OC’s whereabouts because they had a comprehensive understanding of the

investigation to date that the trial court did not have. Where the overriding concern was the location

and rescue of OC, if she was still alive, the trial court also had discretion to release the requested

records to law enforcement without prior in camera review under the plain language of RCW

13.50.100(3).

Reading chapter 13.50 RCW in context also supports a conclusion that the juvenile court

was authorized to release DC’s and BB-P’s records to law enforcement in these circumstances.

RCW 13.50.010(18) allows the release of “confidential child welfare records that pertain to or may

assist with” an investigation of “child fatality, child physical abuse, and criminal neglect cases for

the well-being of the child.” In this case, the sheriff’s office sought DC’s and BB-P’s records to

assist with locating OC, who had been missing for at least three weeks at the time of the hearing,

an urgent investigation whose purpose was to ensure OC’s well-being. When discussing OC’s

whereabouts, DC said that “there is no [OC]” and that OC was “under her mother’s bed and in the

woods.” CP (OC) at 3. BB-P said that the mother physically abused OC and JC and that OC was

kept in a locked “cell” underneath the stairs. CP (OC) at 3. BB-P also said that OC did not make

it out of the family home when it burned. DC confirmed BB-P’s statements regarding the mother’s

16 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

physical abuse of OC. The juvenile court specified that it was releasing the records on the

“emergent basis” of locating OC, who remained “missing . . . and [was] extremely endangered.”

VRP at 8. In sum, the investigation was unquestionably one regarding a potential child fatality and

child physical abuse, and the investigation was certainly to protect OC’s well-being if she was still

alive. In context, RCW 13.50.010(18) supports the conclusion that the legislature intended

otherwise confidential juvenile justice and care agency records to be disclosed in these

circumstances.

Further, while the “legislature has always treated juvenile court records as distinctive and

as deserving of more confidentiality than other types of records,” releasing DC’s and BB-P’s

records to the sheriff’s office did not contravene this principle. S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d at 417. The

statute allows “state criminal justice agencies” and staff from the “administrative office of the

courts” access to “sealed juvenile records information” for research purposes. RCW

13.50.260(8)(c)-(d). In each of these situations, the records must remain confidential. RCW

13.50.010(8). The sheriff’s office was similarly required to keep DC’s and BB-P’s records

confidential pursuant to the court’s order. It would be absurd to conclude that the legislature would

authorize the release of confidential juvenile records to agencies like the administrative office of

the courts for research but would not allow law enforcement access to the records of a missing

five-year-old child’s siblings, particularly when law enforcement stated that they could be helpful

in locating the child.

As the juvenile court clarified, the purpose of releasing DC’s and BB-P’s records to the

sheriff’s office was “specifically and solely” to help find OC. VRP at 15. The trial court strictly

limited the use of the records for that purpose alone and prohibited further disclosure of the records

17 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

for any other purpose. We conclude that under these facts, the trial court did not err when it ordered

the disclosure of DC’s and BB-P’s records to the sheriff’s office for the limited purpose of assisting

with the investigation to locate OC.

C. Authority to Unseal Records

1. Unsealing of juvenile court records

The mother also argues that the juvenile court erred when it ordered BB-P’s, DC’s, and

OC’s juvenile court records be unsealed because it did not comply with GR 15(e)(4), which

governs public access to sealed juvenile court records. The Department concedes that the juvenile

court abused its discretion when it said it was unsealing these records because the court did not

conduct a GR 15 analysis. We agree that unsealing would require compliance with GR 15, and we

accept the Department’s concession.

A “sealed record” is a record protected from examination by the public. GR 15(b)(4). GR

15 sets forth procedures for the “destruction, sealing, and redaction of court records” and “applies

to all court records.” GR 15(a). A “court record” includes “[a]ny document, information, exhibit,

or other thing that is maintained by a court in connection with a judicial proceeding,” along with

any “official record of the proceedings.” GR 31(c)(4). A court record does not include “information

gathered, maintained, or stored by a government agency or other entity to which the court has

access but which is not entered into the record.” Id.

GR 15(e) provides the grounds and procedure for unsealing sealed records. The public may

access a sealed record “only after the court records have been ordered unsealed pursuant to this

section or after entry of a court order allowing access to a sealed court record.” GR 15(e)(1). For

juvenile proceedings, “[i]nspection of a sealed juvenile court record is permitted only by order of

18 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

the court upon motion made by the person who is the subject of the record,” with limited exceptions

not applicable in this case. GR 15(e)(4).

Here, in addition to requiring disclosure of the requested court dependency records to the

sheriff’s office, the juvenile court ordered that the “records [and] juvenile court files . . . shall be

unsealed (if sealed).” CP (OC) at 16. But the juvenile court’s order did not reference or apply GR

15(e). Instead, the order referenced only RCW 13.50.010 and RCW 13.50.100, which do not

provide authority to unseal juvenile court records. Considering the juvenile court’s entire decision

in context, it is clear both from the written order and from the juvenile court’s oral ruling that the

court did not intend to unseal the records in the sense of allowing public access to the juvenile

court files in question. Elsewhere in its order, the juvenile court expressly limited access to the

Attorney General’s Office and the sheriff’s office, and the court strictly limited use of the records,

ordering that they “shall not be used or shared for any other purpose than the investigation of the

location of [OC], unless so ordered by the Court.” CP (OC) at 16. Thus, in context, it appears the

parties and the court referred to “unsealing” without appreciating its implications, namely that

proper unsealing would permit public access to the records in question. Moreover, the parties and

the juvenile court failed to apply the proper procedure for unsealing records.

To the extent that the juvenile court ordered BB-P’s, DC’s, and OC’s juvenile court records

to be “unsealed,” we accept the State’s concession that this was an abuse of discretion. Without

proper application of GR 15(e), the court could not unseal BB-P’s, DC’s, and OC’s juvenile court

records. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the order that purports to unseal BB-P’s, DC’s,

and OC’s records and juvenile court files.

19 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

2. Unsealing transcripts

The mother also argues that any transcripts from dependency hearings for BB-P, DC, and

OC are “sealed and confidential” and, therefore, it was error for the juvenile court to unseal the

transcripts. Br. of Pet’r at 21-27. The Department asserts that dependency hearings and transcripts

are presumptively open to the public and there is no evidence in this record that any relevant

transcripts were ever sealed. In a statement of additional authorities, the Department takes a more

nuanced position, explaining that it believes any copies of dependency hearing transcripts that are

contained in the official juvenile court file are not accessible to the public because of their

placement in that file. In its order, the juvenile court purported to require the unsealing of any

transcripts from dependency proceedings for BB-P, DC, and OC. However, there is nothing in the

record before us that supports the mother’s assertion that the dependency hearing transcripts for

the three children were ever sealed pursuant to GR 15. Furthermore, the mother does not assert

that the transcripts were sealed in a previous sealing hearing nor does she point to written findings

or an order by a juvenile court sealing such documents. See GR 15(c)(1), (2); RCW 13.34.115(1);

G.A.R., 137 Wn. App. at 13 (holding that verbatim reports recorded in a public hearing are not

sealed or confidential); S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d at 431 (“[W]e remain committed to the statutory

presumption that all juvenile court hearings are, and shall remain, open to the public.”). Nor does

our record establish whether any transcripts of dependency proceedings that occurred in open court

were part of the official juvenile court file.

The mother argues that the language of RCW 13.50.010 and RCW 13.50.100 support her

contention that the transcripts are sealed because they are part of the juvenile court file. But the

legislature defined the contents of the confidential juvenile court file in RCW 13.50.010(1)(c) with

20 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

a lengthy and precise list, and it did not include transcripts or reports of proceedings. Absent a

prior order specifically closing the dependency hearings to the public, making the recordings

confidential under RCW 13.34.115, or sealing transcripts of the dependency hearings, such

transcripts would not be confidential under chapter 13.50 RCW or sealed under GR 15.

We cannot determine from the record before us whether there are any transcripts from

dependency proceedings for BB-P, DC, and OC; if so, whether they were previously sealed; or

whether the proceedings from which any transcripts are made were closed to the public. Therefore,

we remand to the juvenile court to determine whether any of the relevant dependency hearing

transcripts were sealed pursuant to GR 15(c) or the hearings closed to the public pursuant to RCW

13.34.115(2). If the transcripts were sealed or the dependency hearings were closed, then the

juvenile court erred when it unsealed the transcripts without applying GR 15(e). Otherwise, any

transcripts of dependency hearings included in the dependency records are not sealed or

confidential.7

III. RECORDS RELEASE PROCEDURE

The mother asks that this court articulate additional procedures or criteria that juvenile

justice or care agencies must meet in order to access records under chapter 13.50 RCW. She argues

that juvenile justice and care agencies “should be prepared to demonstrate compliance with the

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 [of the Washington

7 On reconsideration, the State discusses a circumstance where a transcript of a dependency hearing or an excerpt of such a transcript could be attached to a motion, brief, or other document that the legislature has expressly listed as an item that is included in the definition of the “official juvenile court file” under RCW 13.50.010(1)(c). But because the parties have failed to establish that this occurred in this case, and because the Department’s position has been a moving target, we decline to address this circumstance raised for the first time upon reconsideration.

21 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

State Constitution].” Br. of Pet’r at 35. She further asserts that when records are requested under

RCW 13.50.100(3), “the courts should notify all interested parties and hold a hearing at which the

parties may be heard before releasing such records.” Br. of Pet’r at 42.

We decline to adopt additional requirements for the release of juvenile court records

because the juvenile court, not an appellate court, is in the best position to adopt procedures related

to their own records.

A. Requirement That Procedures Be Adopted

“[C]ourts may ‘adopt any suitable mode of proceeding to carry out a statutory directive

where none is specifically pointed out and jurisdiction is otherwise conferred upon the court.’” In

re Parentage of J.D.W., 14 Wn. App. 2d 388, 415, 471 P.3d 228 (2020) (quoting Abad v. Cozza,

128 Wn.2d 575, 588, 911 P.2d 376 (1996)). RCW 13.50.010(4) provides that “[e]ach juvenile

justice or care agency shall implement procedures consistent with the provisions of this chapter to

facilitate inquiries concerning records.” Juvenile and superior courts are the only courts that fall

within the ambit of “juvenile justice or care agency.” See RCW 13.50.010(1)(b); G.A.R., 137 Wn.

App. at 12 (“[T]he statutory definitions of records and files under chapter 13.50 RCW refer only

to the juvenile court and do not mention appellate records.”). Furthermore, the issue of when and

whether access is granted to juvenile records should be determined by the juvenile court. Seattle

Times Co. v. County of Benton, 99 Wn.2d 251, 262, 661 P.2d 964 (1983).

B. Procedure for Releasing Records

As an initial matter, only juvenile and superior courts qualify as the “courts” contemplated

within “juvenile justice and care agency.” Accordingly, RCW 13.50.010(4) and its directive to

implement procedures consistent with chapter 13.50 RCW to facilitate inquiries concerning

22 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

records do not apply to appellate courts. Therefore, this court does not have the authority under

RCW 13.50.010(4) to adopt procedures regarding the release of juvenile court records. We

therefore decline to adopt any new procedure to carry out the statutory directive. The juvenile

court, as custodian of the juvenile court records, is in the best position to determine when and

whether to release records to other juvenile justice and care agencies. See id.

The mother finally argues we should hold that due process requires “notice to all parties to

the original action and to any person or entity affected by the request,” before juvenile court

records can be disclosed, citing to the Mathews v. Elridge factors. Br. of Pet’r at 48-49; see

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976) (due process

analysis considers the private interest affected by the action, the risk of an erroneous deprivation

of that interest, and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards). Specifically, she

argues that the risk of erroneous deprivation of juvenile confidentiality—particularly when records

are shared with law enforcement—outweighs the government burden of providing notice all to

affected parties.

But the mother did get notice and an opportunity to be heard in a hearing where she was

represented by counsel. Thus, she cannot complain that she was deprived of due process, and to

the extent she asks that we adopt procedural requirements for future cases, again, we decline.

In sum, we decline the mother’s request to adopt additional requirements for release of

records beyond what the legislature has statutorily required under chapter 13.50 RCW.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the juvenile court’s order permitting disclosure of OC’s, DC’s, and BB-P’s

juvenile court dependency records to the sheriff’s office for the purpose of aiding in the

23 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

investigation of OC’s disappearance. We reverse the language in the order purporting to unseal

BB-P’s, DC’s, and OC’s juvenile court records, and we remand for the trial court to remove the

unsealing language from its order. We also conclude that any transcripts of dependency hearings

that were not closed to the public are not sealed absent a sealing order from the juvenile court.

Finally, we decline to adopt additional procedures for disclosing confidential juvenile court

records.

Glasgow, C.J. I concur:

Veljacic, J.

24 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

LEE, J. (concurring in part/dissenting in part) — I concur with the majority that the juvenile

court did not err in addressing the merits of the motions before the court; properly ordered the

release of OC’s records to the Grays Harbor County Sheriff’s Office; and erred in unsealing OC’s,

DC’s, and BP-P’s juvenile court records. I also concur with the majority with regard to the issue

of unsealing the transcripts from dependency hearings for OC, DP, and BP-P, as well as the issue

of adopting additional requirements or procedures for the release of juvenile court records.

However, I do not agree with the majority that the juvenile court properly ordered the

release of DC’s and BP-P’s records to the sheriff’s office. Where the majority and I depart is in

how the phrase “involving the juvenile in question” is interpreted.

As noted by the majority, the parties dispute the meaning of the phrase “involving the

juvenile in question” as it relates to what records can be released. The mother asserts that use of

“the juvenile” and “the juvenile in question” “signifies that only one juvenile can be at issue at a

time under RCW 13.50.100(3),” and “not to multiple juveniles who might happen to be

tangentially involved or who might be subject to other investigations.” Br. of Pet’r at 32.

Therefore, according to the mother, only OC’s records may be released as OC is the “‘juvenile in

question.’” Br. of Pet’r at 32-33. The mother further argues that we need not reach the question

of whether DC and BP-P are “the juveniles in question” because the juvenile court determined the

investigation related only to OC. Br. of Pet’r at 33. The Department of Children, Youth, and

Families (Department) adopts a broader reading and asserts that because the legislature used the

term “‘involving’” rather than “‘subject of’” when referencing “juvenile in question,” the

“[l]egislature intended to authorize the release of records to a law enforcement agency when the

25 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

law enforcement agency is pursuing an investigation or case that broadly involves the juvenile in

question.” Br. of Resp’t at 23.

Because neither “involving” nor “the juvenile in question” are defined by the statute, we

apply the terms’ plain and ordinary meaning. Clark County v. Portland Vancouver Junction R.R.,

17 Wn. App. 2d 289, 295, 485 P.3d 985 (2021). Plain meaning may be discerned from the text of

the provision and context of the statute. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Med. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Revenue,

196 Wn.2d 1, 7-8, 468 P.3d 1056 (2020).

Here, the plain language of the statute states: “Records . . . may be released . . . only when

an investigation or case involving the juvenile in question is being pursued.” RCW 13.50.100(3).

“Records” is defined as “the official juvenile court file, the social file, and records of any other

juvenile justice or care agency in the case.” RCW 13.50.010(1)(d). The “official juvenile court

file” includes the juvenile court’s legal file containing a petition or information. RCW

13.50.010(1)(c). The legislature has imposed an express limitation that “[e]ach petition or

information filed with the court may include only one juvenile.” RCW 13.50.010(2) (emphasis

added). It follows, then, that the “records” within RCW 13.50.100(3) should pertain to only one

juvenile—the juvenile in question. Moreover, RCW 13.50.100(3) does not state “involving a

juvenile” or “involving any juvenile” who may be related to an investigation; the statute states “the

juvenile.” RCW 13.50.100(3) (emphasis added). Therefore, reading RCW 13.50.100(3) in the

context of the entire statute, I would hold that only the records of “the juvenile in question” who

is the subject of the investigation may be released. See State v. Williams, 136 Wn. App. 486, 493-

94, 150 P.3d 111 (2007) (stating that use of “a” instead of “the” incorrectly stated and broadened

the legal standard).

26 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

The Department’s broad reading of RCW 13.50.100(3) should be rejected because “[t]he

legislature has always treated juvenile court records as distinctive and as deserving of more

confidentiality than other types of records;” therefore, the statute should be read narrowly in the

interest of preserving a juvenile’s confidentiality. State v. S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d 408, 417, 352 P.3d

749 (2015). While OC’s investigation may have “affected” or “concerned” DC and BP-P in that

they are OC’s siblings, to include DC’s and BP-P’s records for this reason alone would contravene

the legislative intent of confidentiality of juvenile records. See id. Under the Department’s broad

interpretation, a juvenile justice or care agency—such as law enforcement—could potentially have

unfettered access to records of any juvenile that the agency has deemed “involved” in an

investigation of another juvenile, even if that involvement is minimal or irrelevant. The

Department’s broad reading of “involving,” and the majority’s adoption of that broad reading,

risks defeating the confidentiality provisions of the statute.

The majority erroneously accepts the Department’s broad reading of “involving” and relies

on what DC’s and BP-P’s records would “likely include[],” “could include,” or “might contain.”

Majority at 15. The majority’s opinion allows courts to erroneously speculate on the contents of

the records rather than focusing on whether the statutes allow for the release of juvenile records.

That I cannot agree with.

The majority also claims that “law enforcement officers conducting the investigation were

in a far better position to determine whether information in the requested records provided further

avenues for investigation into OC’s whereabouts.” Majority at 16. The majority appears to miss

the point. The issue is not who gets to determine whether information in the requested records

would provide more information or who is in the best position to determine whether the

27 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

information in the requested records could further an investigation. Rather, the issue is whether

the statute allows the release of confidential juvenile records.

With regard to the majority’s reliance on RCW 13.50.010(18) as a basis for releasing DC’s

and BP-P’s records, the record shows that the juvenile court did not cite to RCW 13.50.010(18) in

its order as a basis for the release and unsealing of the children’s juvenile court records.

Regardless, the investigation at issue involved a missing child, not a child fatality, child physical

abuse, or criminal neglect as required under RCW 13.50.010(18).

The majority relies on the exigency of the situation and that “the investigation was

unquestionably one regarding a potential child fatality and child physical abuse.” Majority at 17.

However, the majority ignores the trial court’s express ruling that it was releasing records because

the sheriff’s office was “investigating a case involving a missing and vulnerable child, O.C.” and

the requested records from prior dependency cases were “reasonably certain to reveal relevant

information necessary to enable law enforcement to locate O.C.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) (OC) at 16

(emphasis added).8 While I agree that there was much concern about OC’s welfare and the trial

court could have focused on the potential for child fatality and abuse in its order for the release of

records, the trial court did not and instead expressly released DC’s and BP-P’s records based on

its concern that OC was missing and needed to be located. It is not this court’s role to ignore the

record before us and to rewrite what the trial court ordered. By allowing the disclosure of

confidential juvenile records under RCW 13.50.010(18) for investigations involving missing

children, the majority reads words into the statute and the trial court’s order that are not there. See

8 The mother designated separate clerk’s papers for OC and DC. Citation to OC’s documents will be referenced as “CP (OC).” References to DC’s documents will be designated as “CP (DC).”

28 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

Progressive Animal Welfare Soc’y v. Univ. of Wash., 114 Wn.2d 677, 688, 790 P.2d 604 (1990)

(courts may not read into a statute matters that are not in it).

Also, the majority relies on RCW 13.50.010(18) as authority for the juvenile court to share

DC’s and BP-P’s juvenile court records with the sheriff’s office. RCW 13.50.010(18) pertains to

when the Department may share confidential agency records in cases of child abuse or child

fatality investigations; thus, RCW 13.50.010(18) is inapplicable on the issue of whether juvenile

court records can be released to a participant in the juvenile justice or care system. See RCW

13.50.010(18).

A. DC’S RECORDS

Here, the juvenile court released DC’s records for the purpose of furthering the sheriff’s

investigation of a missing child, OC. In addition to the missing child investigation of OC, the

sheriff’s office had a separate investigation for the abandonment of DC and cited to DC’s

investigation as one of the reasons it requested the children’s records.

Because there was an investigation involving DC, the juvenile court could have properly

shared DC’s records with the sheriff’s office pursuant to RCW 13.50.100(3). The mother even

appears to concede that had the juvenile court released DC’s records for the purposes of DC’s

abandonment investigation, it would have had authority to do so. However, the juvenile court

unequivocally stated that it was releasing records only “for the purpose of furthering the

investigation of the missing minor child, O.C.” CP (OC) at 16. Therefore, the juvenile court

functionally denied the sheriff’s request for records for the purposes of furthering DC’s

investigation. Because DC’s investigation was not the basis for her record release, DC was not

“the juvenile in question.” Therefore, the juvenile court erred when it released DC’s records.

29 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

B. BB-P’S RECORDS

The sheriff’s office filed motions for the release of BB-P’s 2014 and 2017 dependency

“records, court filings, and transcripts” under both OC’s and DC’s open and closed dependency

case numbers. CP (OC) at 9; CP (DC) at 9. Even ignoring the fact that the sheriff’s office

requested BB-P’s records under his siblings’ case numbers, there was no active investigation

regarding BB-P by any juvenile justice or care agency at the time of the motions. Therefore, BB-

P is not “the juvenile in question.” And the sheriff’s office requested BB-P’s dependency records

from 2014, two years before OC was born, which would seem to have little, if anything, relevant

to OC’s investigation. Because BB-P is not “the juvenile in question” nor was there an

investigation of BB-P, the juvenile court erred when it released BB-P’s records.

For the reasons articulated above, I would interpret the phrase “involving the juvenile in

question” in RCW 13.50.100(3) to only allow disclosure of records relating to the juvenile that is

the subject of the investigation. Therefore, I would reverse the juvenile court’s order releasing

DC’s and BP-P’s records to the sheriff’s office.

Lee, J.