Opinion
No. 24923-9-III.
September 6, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 04-7-00643-8, Michael E. Schwab, J., entered January 5, 2006.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Stephens, J., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Kulik, J.
Rogelio Salas appeals the trial court's termination of his parental rights. He contends the termination order violated his constitutionally protected interest in the care and custody of his child and that the court's findings on the required statutory factors were unsupported by the evidence. We affirm.
FACTS
Mr. Salas is the father of A.B, born October 27, 2001, in Yakima, Washington. At the time of A.B.'s birth, Mr. Salas had ended his relationship with A.B.'s mother and was living in Las Vegas, Nevada, with his mother and stepfather and participating in a felony drug court program. On October 29, police took A.B. into protective custody and placed her in the care of a social worker after hospital testing indicated the presence of cocaine in her system. The Department of Social and Health Services (Department) called Mr. Salas to inform him that A.B. had been placed in state care. The next day, a dependency petition was filed by the Department.
On February 4, 2002, dependency orders were entered. The disposition order required A.B.'s mother to participate in services to correct her drug/alcohol and parenting issues so that she could be reunited with A.B. She failed to participate in services for any length of time. A final order was later entered terminating her parental rights to A.B.
Mr. Salas was required to submit to drug/alcohol evaluation and comply with a home study. He was also asked to comply with Nevada drug court services and visit A.B. as often as he could. The Department rejected Mr. Salas's request that A.B. be placed in his care at his mother's home in Las Vegas, and instead placed A.B. with a maternal relative in Yakima.
On February 25, 2003, Mr. Salas had his first visit with A.B. when she was 16 months old. On June 11, Mr. Salas relocated to Yakima, Washington. Mr. Salas met with Department social worker, Amy Marshall, and requested that services be offered immediately. Ms. Marshall referred Mr. Salas for random urinalysis testing and a parenting assessment. A supervised visitation schedule with A.B. was also started.
In July, Mr. Salas and A.B. met with parent educator, Andres Soto, for a parenting assessment. Mr. Soto found that based on his meetings with A.B., he believed that A.B. was suffering painful emotions in dealing with the separation from her caregiver during visits. He thus recommended that A.B. and Mr. Salas receive counseling and that some of the visits be monitored by a child therapist.
Although the initial visitation sessions were extremely difficult for A.B., A.B. began to stabilize and establish a positive relationship with Mr. Salas. By September, the Department planned to increase visitation and move towards placement of A.B. in Mr. Salas's home. Mr. Salas had been participating in services and had completed three parenting classes.
On September 16, unsupervised visitation was scheduled to start. Mr. Salas, however, did not show up for the visit, because he had been arrested for a domestic violence incident involving his then-girlfriend. Mr. Salas pleaded guilty to fourth degree assault and was incarcerated for several months. Visitation with A.B. did not resume until February 2004.
In early 2004, the Department referred Mr. Salas for parenting and domestic violence assessments. Parent educator, Steve Bergland, was assigned to work with Mr. Salas and A.B. Mr. Bergland provided Mr. Salas with parenting education and observed visitation sessions. Visitation, however, was very difficult for A.B. A.B. did not want to take part in the visits and Mr. Bergland had a difficult time getting A.B. to interact with Mr. Salas. A.B. did not want to leave her caregiver's side during the visits. A.B. would respond negatively to Mr. Salas and would come to the visits unhappy.
Mr. Salas was also assigned to mental health counselor, Rose Roberson, for a domestic violence assessment. Ms. Roberson conducted a personality assessment and domestic violence inventory on Mr. Salas. Ms. Roberson recommended that Mr. Salas participate in a 20-week anger management program and Mr. Salas immediately started the program. In the 10th week of the program, Mr. Salas informed Ms. Roberson of the domestic violence incident involving his girlfriend. Mr. Salas's program was then modified to a 52-week program.
On May 8, 2004, Mr. Salas married. Mr. Salas and his wife separated later that summer. For the next several months, Mr. Salas continued to participate in his parenting classes, visitation sessions with A.B. and the anger management program. Despite several visitation sessions, there was very little progress in A.B.'s interaction with Mr. Salas. A.B. was still unhappy at the visits and did not want to take part in the sessions. There was also no improvement in A.B.'s ability to accept Mr. Salas.
On September 13, the Department filed a termination petition. On November 22, Keith Gilbertson was appointed by the court to serve as A.B.'s guardian ad litem.
On January 1, 2005, Mr. Salas and his wife had a son, A.S. In February, Mr. Salas's wife was convicted of criminal mistreatment as a result of the care she was providing to her disabled sister while she and Mr. Salas were living together. That same month, Mr. Salas was suspended from his anger management program after he stopped attending classes. On February 7, Mr. Salas informed Mr. Bergland that he was moving back to Las Vegas. Mr. Bergland told Mr. Salas that he would keep his file open in case he came back so that visitation with A.B. could continue. On February 25, Mr. Salas did not attend his scheduled visitation session. His file was later closed.
On March 8, Mr. Salas called Ms. Marshall to inform her that he was considering a move back to Las Vegas. Mr. Salas told Ms. Marshall that he wanted to visit with A.B. before he left. Later that day, Ms. Marshall was informed that Mr. Salas had already moved to Las Vegas. No visitation was coordinated.
In May, Mr. Salas called Ms. Marshall to set up visitation with A.B. A visitation session was scheduled for May 20. At the visit, A.B. ignored Mr. Salas. A.B. refused to open the gifts Mr. Salas brought for her. She would not touch the toys and refused food offered to her by Mr. Salas.
Ms. Marshall called the Nevada Department of Child and Family Services and forwarded to Mr. Salas the names of agencies providing parenting and domestic violence education services, as he had not yet started participation in court-ordered services in Las Vegas. Ms. Marshall, however, did not receive any further communication from Mr. Salas on whether he had engaged in services in Las Vegas.
On June 13, 2005, the termination trial commenced. The Department first called Ms. Roberson to testify. Ms. Roberson testified that Mr. Salas's progress in the anger management program was "average" and that he was still in need of domestic violence treatment. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 35. Ms. Roberson said she would not recommend returning the child to Mr. Salas.
Mr. Salas testified that he made a request with Las Vegas social services at the time A.B. was born to investigate his home situation, but that request was denied because paternity had not yet been established. He said that he went through the steps to get paternity established and then requested another home study, but that request was also denied because he was involved in drug court. He said visitation was hampered by the caregiver and her mother participating in his visitation sessions with A.B., because A.B. would constantly interact with them.
Mr. Salas testified that he made efforts to follow through with Ms. Marshall's recommendations for services in Nevada. He said that he was participating in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and trying to stay away from people who use drugs. Mr. Salas said that his son with his wife, as well as her other child, were both living with him in Nevada and that he had given his parents temporary custody of the children because of financial problems. He said it was his desire to have A.B. move to Las Vegas.
Mr. Bergland testified that the biggest problem between Mr. Salas and A.B. concerned their bonding and attachment. He said that even though he saw improvement with Mr. Salas, there was no improvement with A.B. He said that the visits were traumatic for A.B. and that after one year, she still did not want to participate in the visits. Mr. Bergland said that it would take a considerable length of time before A.B. would be comfortable with Mr. Salas and that Mr. Salas still needed work on setting boundaries for her.
Mr. Bergland said that he had concerns with Mr. Salas's past history of drug abuse and violence and that he had major concerns for the safety of A.B. He also said that he would have major concerns about placing A.B. in Mr. Salas's care. Mr. Bergland testified that it was in A.B.'s long term best interest to keep her with the caregiver. He said that A.B. needed stability and had a strong bond with her caregiver. He said he did not recommend increasing visitation with Mr. Salas as that was not in A.B.'s best interest.
Ms. Marshall testified that A.B. needed consistency and stability. She said that there were consistencies in Mr. Salas's progress, but then he suddenly moved to Las Vegas. She opined that Mr. Salas was not a stable parent. Ms. Marshall said that A.B. did not progress after one year of consistent visitation with Mr. Salas and that continuing the dependency would cause her distress. Ms. Marshall said she did not think that Mr. Salas's relationship with A.B. would ever progress to the point where therapy would be beneficial and it was in A.B.'s best interest to live with her caregiver.
Mr. Gilbertson, A.B.'s guardian ad litem, testified that Mr. Salas was making an effort to connect with A.B. and that he had a very strong family support system. However, even with the support, Mr. Gilbertson said there was never a long period of time where Mr. Salas had displayed solid stability. Mr. Gilbertson said he was worried because Mr. Salas exhibited a lack of judgment in relationships, and his incarceration and subsequent lapse in visitation were detrimental to his relationship with A.B. He said that Mr. Salas and A.B. were nowhere near the point of a parent-child bond and that A.B. was far from any transition to be placed with Mr. Salas.
Mr. Gilbertson testified that A.B. was extremely bonded to her caregiver and to remove her would cause extreme emotional problems. He said that A.B. was currently living with her half-sibling and that a bond had already been established between them. He said that on-going court procedures would be very problematic for A.B. because she needed permanency. He concluded it was in A.B.'s best interest to sever the relationship with Mr. Salas and his extended family.
At the conclusion of the trial, the court was not satisfied that the Department had addressed all necessary issues relating to the relationship between Mr. Salas and A.B. The court asked Mr. Salas to demonstrate his commitment to be involved with A.B and asked Mr. Salas to resolve the issue with his wife within 45 days. The court asked Mr. Salas to (1) have a domestic violence assessment done in Las Vegas and demonstrate participation in an ongoing program and (2) have a substance evaluation done and demonstrate his involvement in regular urinalysis testing. The court also asked the Department to provide Mr. Salas and his mother with weekend visitation with A.B., in the event that they were in Washington. The court then deferred making its final decision until after the record was supplemented, and continued the matter.
In July, Mr. Salas obtained a domestic violence assessment in Las Vegas, which recommended a 26-week batterer's program. He also visited A.B. every two weeks. On August 21, 2005, Mr. Salas's marriage was dissolved. In September, Mr. Salas started a domestic violence program.
On November 16, trial resumed. The Department called family therapist, Martha Burns, to testify. Ms. Burns testified that she observed four visitation sessions between Mr. Salas and A.B. She also said she met with A.B. outside of visitation. Ms. Burns said that A.B. appeared nervous and anxious when with Mr. Salas and that she could not see how increasing contact between Mr. Salas and A.B. would develop a better relationship between them. She said that keeping this process going would increase A.B.'s anxiety and nervousness even in her own home. Ms. Burns said that A.B. understood that things were in limbo and that as long as Mr. Salas continued to try and reunify with A.B., her anxiety would be heightened, hindering his visits with her.
Mr. Salas then testified. Mr. Salas testified that his parents still had guardianship over his son with his former wife, and that he had not taken any steps to vacate or terminate the guardianship. Mr. Salas also said that he had completed eight sessions of the domestic violence program, but that he had missed two sessions. He said he had completed a drug and alcohol assessment and that he had been sober since 2001.
Julie Doshier of Heart to Heart Social Services testified that she supervised visitation between Mr. Salas and A.B. Ms. Doshier testified that between July and November, the visits remained the same in that it took a long time for A.B. to warm up to Mr. Salas and his mother. Ms. Doshier said that the caregiver's mother participated in these visits, but that she did not influence A.B. to be negative about the visitations with her father. She said that the caregiver's mother always encouraged A.B. to play with Mr. Salas and eat what they brought for her.
Ms. Marshall testified that she had also observed some of the visits between Mr. Salas and A.B. She said that the progression of a relationship between Mr. Salas and A.B. had been minimal. She said she believed that removing the caregiver's mother from the visits would result in distress to A.B. that would outweigh any benefit. Ms. Marshall said that if the termination petition was granted, the Department would still support A.B.'s paternal grandparents having contact with A.B. Ms. Marshall said that continuing the parent-child relationship, however, would greatly impact A.B.'s ability to have permanency in her life, and that she had been in limbo for four years.
After the Department rested, Mr. Salas called therapist Kathy Lanthorn to testify. Ms. Lanthorn testified that she observed A.B. during two visitation sessions. She said that Mr. Salas was very determined and committed to pursuing custody of A.B. Ms. Lanthorn said that she noticed behaviors unexpected of a four-year-old. She said that A.B. was very comfortable telling the adults what to do and that she seemed very accustomed to having things done for her. She said there were several situations where the caregiver's mother asked her to do something, and A.B. completely ignored her. She said she did not see Mr. Salas do anything that would concern her. She said that Mr. Salas was unbelievably patient and was very creative with A.B. She said that it took A.B. less than 30 seconds to start engaging with Mr. Salas, that A.B. did not hesitate and that it was a very quick transition. She said that A.B. was laughing and smiling at Mr. Salas and that A.B. called Mr. Salas "dad" and Mr. Salas's mother "grandma." RP at 1308. She said that on one visit A.B. sat on Mr. Salas's lap for awhile. She also said that she observed A.B. kiss Mr. Salas on his cheek.
Ms. Lanthorn said she did not agree with Ms. Burns's conclusion that A.B. and Mr. Salas did not have an attachment. She said that A.B. needed time with Mr. Salas without her caregivers so that she would not experience the anxiety of conflicting loyalties. She said she believed a transition to Mr. Salas was possible with A.B. Ms. Lanthorn said it was not in the best interests of A.B. to be forever denied contact with Mr. Salas.
Mr. Gilbertson was then called to testify as a rebuttal witness. Mr. Gilbertson testified that he had not participated in the visitation sessions since June, because he felt that he had a good sense of how the visitations were going based on previous sessions. He said, however, based on what Ms. Lanthorn had said at trial, he attended one visitation session on November 18 to see if there was any change from previous sessions. Mr. Gilbertson said that when he arrived at the visit, he kept to a distance so as to not interfere. He said that A.B.'s expression changed when she saw Mr. Salas. He said she appeared saddened. He said that she would allow Mr. Salas to hold her, but that she never faced him. He said she would not make eye contact with him and would not turn to ask him questions.
Mr. Gilbertson said that an open adoption would have been a very good option for A.B. but that it was in A.B.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights, because A.B. needed permanency and stability. He said that the continuing efforts for visitation between A.B. and Mr. Salas were not benefiting A.B., as there had been no progress. Mr. Gilbertson said the older A.B. became, the more difficult visitation would be.
At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that despite Mr. Salas and his family's efforts, visitation had not yet established a close attachment between Mr. Salas and A.B. The court stated that this problem would need considerable long-term efforts to be resolved and that these problems were not the fault of the Department. It proposed an open adoption arrangement allowing Mr. Salas and his family regular visitation with A.B., but Mr. Salas did not agree to this option. Ultimately, the court found it in A.B.'s best interest to terminate Mr. Salas's parental rights. This appeal follows.
ANALYSIS
A. Constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of children
Mr. Salas contends the termination order violated his constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of A.B. He argues that he was competent, fit and able to care for A.B., and that the court erred by severing the parent-child relationship on the basis that A.B. had bonded with her caregiver. Mr. Salas relies on In re Welfare of Churape, 43 Wn. App. 634, 719 P.2d 127 (1986) and In re Dependency of T.L.G., 126 Wn. App. 181, 198, 108 P.3d 156 (2005) to support his argument.
Biological parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody and control of their children. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042 (1923); In re Welfare of Sumey, 94 Wn.2d 757, 762, 621 P.2d 108 (1980). A trial court asked to interfere with a parent's right should employ great care. In re Welfare of H.S., 94 Wn. App. 511, 530, 973 P.2d 474 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1108 (2000). However, a parent's fundamental right is not absolute. Sumey, 94 Wn.2d at 762. The State has a responsibility as parens patriae to intervene to protect a child when the parent's actions or inactions endanger the child's physical or emotional welfare. Id. RCW 13.34.180 and RCW 13.34.190 effectuate this obligation. Under these statutes, a court may terminate parental rights if it finds that (1) the requisite allegations are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence; and (2) termination is in the best interests of the child. RCW 13.34.190(1)(a), (2).
Here, there was an adequate basis for the trial court to conclude that the relevant factors were met, and neither Churape nor T.L.G. supports Mr. Salas's argument that this violated his constitutional rights as a parent. In Churape, 43 Wn. App. at 635, the father was an undocumented migrant worker who had been deported several times. Both of his daughters were declared dependent and placed in foster care. Id. After several months of little contact with his daughters, the Department filed a termination petition to terminate the father's parental rights. Id. The frequency of the father's visits increased thereafter, however, and the termination petition was dismissed. Id. A subsequent termination petition was filed following the father's second deportation that year, and the father's parental rights were ultimately terminated. Id. at 635-36.
On appeal, the Court remanded the proceeding to the trial court for additional testimony regarding whether the problems necessitating state intervention had been remedied and whether reunification of the family could be effectuated in the near future. Id. at 639. The court found that the evidence established the only irremediable condition was the father's lack of contact with his children. Id. at 638. The court then stated that the fact that the children had been in foster homes and had developed ties to their foster parents could not be the controlling consideration. Id. at 639. The court did not indicate, however, whether the children were unable to bond or form attachments to their father or whether the visits were detrimental to them in any way.
In T.L.G., 126 Wn. App. at 194-95, the Department filed a petition to terminate parental rights based in part on the parents' issues with anxiety and depression. The Department alleged these mental health issues rendered the parents incapable of providing proper care for their children for an extended period of time. Id. at 195. At the conclusion of the trial, the court terminated the parental rights of both parents, finding that the parents suffered from significant mental health issues that would require three years of specialized treatment and that their mental illnesses rendered them incapable of providing proper care for their children for an extended period of time. Id. at 196-97.
On appeal, the court reversed the termination order, holding the State did not establish how the parents' mental health issues related to their ability to care for their children. Id. at 198-206. The court stated that mental illness is not, in and of itself, proof that a parent is unfit or incapable. Instead, the court stated that termination must be based on current unfitness and children cannot be removed from their homes merely because their parents suffer from mental illness. Id. at 203.
Churape and T.L.G. demonstrate that where a parent is competent, fit and able to resume custody, a court cannot end the parent-child relationship simply because the child has bonded to a foster care provider. Here, however, the fact that A.B. had bonded to her caregiver was not the only concern before the court. Rather, the irremediable condition was not Mr. Salas's lack of contact with A.B or his inability to parent her, but A.B.'s inability to form any sort of bond or attachment to her father. Mr. Salas had over 100 visits in three years with A.B. Despite the number of visits, the evidence supported the trial court's finding that A.B. was unhappy and distressed by the visits. A.B. was anxious and nervous and several experts testified at trial that she was far from any transition toward a parent-child relationship with Mr. Salas, and the problem would get worse as she grew older. These concerns go beyond the concerns at issue in Churape and T.L.G.
Moreover, although parents have a fundamental liberty and privacy interest in the care and custody of their children, the court may not accommodate the parents' rights when to do so would ignore the basic needs of the child. In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689, 695, 611 P.2d 1245 (1980). A child's right to basic nurturing includes the "right to a safe, stable, and permanent home and a speedy resolution of [dependency] proceeding[s]." RCW 13.34.020; In re Dependency of C.R.B., 62 Wn. App. 608, 615, 814 P.2d 1197 (1991).
Here, A.B. has been dependent and in foster care since her birth. She is now almost six years old. The trial court carefully examined the services provided to Mr. Salas and his progress in addressing his deficiencies, even continuing the dependency trial for several months to allow Mr. Salas and the Department to address additional issues. Because the testimony at trial established that A.B. was far from any transition to Mr. Salas, the only alternative to termination was to continue her dependency indefinitely. The trial court considered the testimony and reasonably concluded that further services were unlikely to remedy the conditions that prevented placing A.B. with Mr. Salas, and that permanently placing A.B. in a stable home with her caregiver was in her best interests. Absent agreement to an open adoption, the court concluded that termination of Mr. Salas's parental rights was necessary to a permanent placement for A.B. In so holding, the court gave full respect to Mr. Salas's constitutional interest in the care and custody of A.B.
B. Sufficiency of evidence to support termination of parental rights Apart from his constitutional challenge, Mr. Salas contends the court's findings of fact under RCW 13.34.180 are unsupported by the evidence.
RCW 13.34.180(1) governs the termination of parental rights and sets forth six factors the State must allege and prove in a termination hearing:
(a) That the child has been found to be a dependant child;
(b) That the court has entered a dispositional order pursuant to RCW 13.34.130;
(c) That the child has been removed or will, at the time of the hearing, have been removed from the custody of the parent for a period of at least six months pursuant to a finding of dependency;
(d) That services ordered under RCW 13.34.136 have been expressly and understandably offered or provided and all necessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered or provided;
(e) That there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be returned to the parent in the near future . . .;
. . .;
(f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes that child's prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home.
A court may terminate parental rights if the Department proves the elements of RCW 13.34.180(1) by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. RCW 13.34.190(1)(a). "Clear, cogent and convincing" means highly probable. In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 141, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995). Additionally, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child. RCW 13.34.190(2).
We will not second guess the court's factual findings under RCW 13.34.180(1) if they are supported by substantial evidence. In re Dependency of C.B., 61 Wn. App. 280, 286, 810 P.2d 518 (1991). Because only the trial court has the opportunity to hear the testimony and observe the witnesses, its decision is entitled to deference; this court does not judge the credibility of the witnesses or weigh the evidence. In re Dependency of A.V.D., 62 Wn. App. 562, 568, 815 P.2d 277 (1991).
Mr. Salas does not challenge the court's findings on the first three elements of the statute. He contends, however, that the Department failed to provide all services reasonably necessary to correct his parental deficiencies. Specifically, he argues that the Department did not offer or provide individualized parent-child therapy sessions, despite a 2003 recommendation for such services, and did not work towards transitioning A.B.'s caregivers out of the visits. This is not a basis to reverse the trial court. Even where the Department "inexcusably fails" to offer services to a willing parent, termination will still be deemed appropriate if the services "would not have remedied the parent's deficiencies in the foreseeable future, which depends on the age of the child." In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. 149, 164, 29 P.3d 1275 (2001). Where the record establishes that the offer of services would be futile, the trial court can make a finding that the State has offered all reasonable services. In re Welfare of Ferguson, 32 Wn. App. 865, 869-70, 650 P.2d 1118 (1982), rev'd on other grounds, 98 Wn.2d 589, 656 P.2d 503 (1983).
Here, there was substantial evidence to establish that therapy sessions between Mr. Salas and A.B. would have been futile. Ms. Marshall testified that based on her observations of A.B. and Mr. Salas, she did not think that Mr. Salas's relationship with A.B. would ever progress to the point where therapy would be beneficial. Ms. Burns testified that it would be hard to provide therapy to a young child, because young children are not as verbal as older children. She said that it is difficult to teach a young child to identify feelings and that some children are not "in touch" with the same types of things as adults. RP at 954.
Additionally, the testimony at trial established that it would be harmful to A.B. to transition her caregivers from the visits. Mr. Bergland testified that he never got to a point during the visitation sessions where A.B.'s caregivers could be removed from the visits without causing trauma to A.B. Ms. Doshier testified that even though the caregiver's mother participated in the visits she observed, she did not negatively influence A.B. in any way, and in fact encouraged A.B. to play with Mr. Salas. Ms. Marshall also testified that the progression of the relationship between A.B. and Mr. Salas was so minimal that removing the caregiver from the visits would result in negative consequences to A.B. that would outweigh any benefit. Mr. Gilbertson testified that the difficulties in visitation between Mr. Salas and A.B. would only increase as A.B. grew older. The evidence was thus sufficient that any additional services would have been futile to remedy the deficiencies in Mr. Salas and A.B.'s ability to bond or form an attachment. The court did not err in finding that the Department offered or provided all necessary services and concluding that additional services would not likely remedy the conditions in the near future.
Mr. Salas next contends the Department failed to establish that the continuation of the parent-child relationship clearly diminished A.B.'s prospects of integration into a stable and permanent home. However, the testimony at trial established that A.B. had been in foster care since birth and needed permanence and stability. The court acknowledged that it would be a misnomer to consider "returning" A.B. to Mr. Salas, as she has never lived with him. Clerk's Papers at 35. The Department presented evidence that it would take a considerable length of time before A.B. would be comfortable with Mr. Salas and that there had never been a significant period of time over which Mr. Salas had displayed solid stability. The Department also presented evidence that ongoing court proceedings would be problematic, that A.B. understood she was in limbo and that keeping the dependency process open would increase A.B.'s anxiety and nervousness. The evidence was thus sufficient to establish that continuation of the parent-child relationship clearly diminished A.B.'s prospects of integration into a stable and permanent home.
Mr. Salas also contends the Department failed to prove that termination of his parental rights was in A.B.'s best interests. No specific factors are involved in a best interests determination, and "each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances." A.V.D., 62 Wn. App. at 572.
Here, substantial evidence supported the finding that termination was in A.B.'s best interests. A.B.'s social worker, her guardian ad litem and a family therapist all recommended that it was in A.B.'s best interests to sever the relationship with Mr. Salas. The court thus did not err in finding that termination was in A.B.'s best interests.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the court's termination order did not violate Mr. Salas's constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of A.B. We also conclude that the court's findings that Mr. Salas was provided all services reasonably necessary to correct his parental deficiencies and that continuation of the parent-child relationship clearly diminished A.B.'s prospects of integration into a stable and permanent home were supported by substantial evidence at trial. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court did not err in concluding that termination was in A.B.'s best interests.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
SCHULTHEIS, A.C.J.
KULIK, J.