Opinion
68403-5-I
01-22-2013
In the Matter of the Dependency of R.S., A minor child, v. Michael Snyder, Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Schindler, J.
The court found the State of Washington Department of Health and Human Services (DSHS) established the dependency of R.S. and entered an order of disposition. For the first time on appeal, the father challenges the requirement to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation, follow any treatment recommendations, and submit to random urinalysis (UA). We affirm.
H.S. and Michael Snyder are the parents of two children, M.A.S and R.S. Both parents have a history of mental illness. H.S. has been diagnosed with psychotic disorder, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and cognitive delays. Snyder has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, psychotic disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and poly-substance dependence. When M.A.S. was born on August 8, 2010, DSHS placed M.A.S. in out-of-home care and filed a dependency petition. After R.S. was born a year later on August 11, 2011, DSHS filed a dependency petition.
Dependency of M.A.S.
After DSHS filed a dependency petition, the parents entered into an agreed order of dependency. The findings of fact state that H.S. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features and cognitive delays, and Snyder was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, psychotic order NOS (not otherwise specified), and poly-substance dependence. The court found that, untreated, the parents did not have the ability to care for M.A.S.
The agreed disposition order requires Snyder to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow any treatment recommendations, undergo random UA once a week until he achieved 30 days of "consistently clean, not missed, not diluted UAs, " undergo a psychological evaluation with a parenting component and follow any treatment recommendations, participate in age-appropriate parenting classes, and comply with medication as prescribed by his doctor.
Dr. R. Eden Deutsch performed a psychological and parenting evaluation of Snyder. Dr. Deutsch diagnosed Snyder with episodic schizoaffective disorder "vulnerable to predictable eruption under stress."
Following an intake interview, a therapist at Navos Mental Health Solutions diagnosed Snyder with co-occurring mental health and chemical dependency disorders. Snyder did not obtain a chemical dependency assessment.
At a dependency review hearing on January 9, 2012, the court found that both parents failed to comply with court-ordered services. The court found that neither parent had made progress in correcting the parental deficiencies that required placing M.A.S. in out-of-home care. The court ordered DSHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights no later than March 12.
Dependency of R.S.
R.S. was born prematurely on August 11, 2011, and required hospital care. On August 17, DSHS filed a dependency petition alleging there was no parent capable of caring for R.S.
The three-day dependency trial began on January 30, 2012. A number of witnesses testified, including Dr. Deutsch, DSHS social workers, the therapist at Navos, and Snyder.
H.S. also contested the dependency. The court found H.S. incompetent and appointed a guardian ad litem. H.S. did not testify on her own behalf. (H.S. testified as a rebuttal witness for the State.)
Snyder testified that "[t]here is no proof of me being a drug addict or being a bad parent." Snyder said he did not obtain the drug and alcohol evaluation because "I really don't feel I need it." Snyder testified that he did not undergo the random UAs because "[t]here's been no chemical dependency evaluation that says that I am on drugs, and I have never had a drug problem." Snyder said he would not comply with court orders that he did not consider necessary.
Q. So when you agreed to do random urinalysis back in [M.A.S.]'s case, you haven't done that either; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. And you don't think either [a drug and alcohol evaluation or random UA] services are necessary to have your children returned to you?
A. No....
Q. It's your testimony, then, if the court orders you to do things that you didn't feel were necessary, you would not do them?
A. Yeah, that's what I did, and I made that statement more than once to [the DSHS social workers], the courts, my lawyers.
The court found there was no parent capable of caring for R.S. The court incorporated by reference the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order in the prior dependency of M.A.S., and entered extensive and detailed findings of fact in the dependency of R.S. The findings of fact state, in pertinent part:
2. Father's criminal history includes convictions for Assault in the Third Degree (10/1/1999), Assault in the Fourth Degree (10/12/2001), Malicious Mischief in the Third Degree (10/15/2001), Malicious Harassment (10/15/2001), Malicious Harassment (10/15/2001), Assault in the Fourth Degree – DV (9/17/2002), Malicious Mischief in the 3rd Degree – DV (9/17/2002), Assault in the Fourth Degree (7/9/2008), and Theft in the Third Degree (8/1/2011). Father's criminal behavior for Malicious Mischief and Malicious Harassment in 2001 was precipitated by a mental health episode. Father's criminal conviction for Assault in 2008 involved an assault on a 12-year-old child.
6. DSHS has referred Father repeatedly for services. . . .
8. At the outset of the fact-finding hearing, Father's thinking appeared to be unrealistic. He denied any need for monitoring of his own condition, claiming he had been completely cured by love. He continued an unrealistic belief that Mother is capable of being an appropriate parent when unsupervised.
13. Father externalizes responsibility for his failure to complete services, blaming DSHS, the providers, Mother's pregnancy, for his inability to participate. Alternatively, he asserts that he does not need services, betraying a lack of motivation to participate.
17. Father has denied any need for remedial services. Father has not completed a drug and alcohol evaluation, random urinalysis, or age appropriate parenting classes. He has stopped engaging in any mental health services and has stopped taking any mental health medications. Father testified that he will not comply with any services that the court has ordered in either dependency action. He insists he does not want or need the offered services.
The court entered an agreed disposition order. The agreed disposition order required Snyder to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow any treatment recommendations, undergo random UA once a week until he achieved 30 days of "consistently clean, not missed, not diluted UAs, " obtain mental health counseling and comply with medication management, participate in age-appropriate parenting classes, obtain marriage counseling, and establish paternity.
The first page of the order of disposition has checked boxes indicating that the order is contested. But the verbatim record of proceedings shows that Snyder did not contest the dispositional order and that during most of the hearing, the parties discussed Snyder's requested changes to the findings of fact in the order of dependency. And Snyder's counsel explicitly stated that Snyder agreed to the services the State requested. The court permitted handwritten changes to the proposed order of disposition, indicating that the failure to remove the checked boxes was a clerical oversight.
Drug and Alcohol Evaluation and Random UA
Snyder does not challenge the court's findings of fact. Snyder asserts the court erred in requiring him to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation, follow any treatment recommendations, and submit to random UA. Snyder claims there is no evidence that his parental deficiencies are related to drugs or alcohol. Absent manifest constitutional error, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. RAP 2.5(a)(3); In re Dependency of Roberts, 46 Wn.App. 748, 756, 732 P.2d 528 (1987). In any event, the unchallenged findings of fact show the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Snyder to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation and submit to random UA.
To evaluate a claim of insufficient evidence of dependency, an appellate court determines whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law. In re Dependency of E.L.F., 117 Wn.App. 241, 245, 70 P.3d 163 (2003). Evidence is substantial if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, a rational trier of fact could find the fact more likely than not to be true. E.L.F., 117 Wn.App. at 245. In making this determination, this court does not weigh the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739-40, 513 P.2d 831 (1973). And where, as here, the findings are unchallenged, they are verities on appeal. In re Interest of J.F., 109 Wn.App. 718, 722, 37 P.3d 1227 (2001).
We review an order of disposition in a dependency case for abuse of discretion. In re Welfare of J.H., 75 Wn.App. 887, 894, 880 P.2d 1030 (1994). A court abuses its discretion if the decision is manifestly unreasonable, or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. In re Dependency of T.L.G., 139 Wn.App. 1, 15, 156 P.3d 222 (2007). A decision is manifestly unreasonable if "it is outside the range of acceptable choices, given the facts and the applicable legal standard or if the facts do not meet the requirements of the correct standard." T.L.G., 139 Wn.App. at 15-16.
Relying on his testimony that he "never abused drugs and had completed chemical dependency evaluations in 2000 and 2008, neither of which revealed drug use, " Snyder claims there is no "nexus" between any parental deficiency and the requirement to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation and submit to random UA.
First, the unchallenged findings establish Snyder was diagnosed with poly-substance abuse and that without treatment, the diagnosis affects Snyder's ability to properly care for R.S. Second, Snyder did not testify that the 2000 and 2008 evaluations showed he did not use drugs, but merely that a court ordered him to obtain the evaluations. Further, the court did not find Snyder's testimony that he "never abused" drugs credible.
We affirm.