In re J.L.T

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Welfare of M.G

    148 Wn. App. 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that ยง 1913 was inapplicable where parent challenged a dependency order to which she had previously consented during the course of an involuntary custody proceeding initiated by the state

    Where there is substantial compliance with RCW 13.34.110 and no resulting prejudice, the failure to prepare an ISSP does not invalidate the agreed order. In re Dependency of J.L.T., 56 Wn. App. 682, 691, 785 P.2d 829 (1990). There is substantial discussion in the record about the reasons for the dependency, and the disposition order did provide for the services indicated in the ISSP.

  2. Dependency of A.D.C

    822 P.2d 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992)

    However, Ludden contends that LSS's participation in the dependency process has the primary effect of advancing religion, and the involvement fosters entanglement with religion. A Washington case that addressed, but did not resolve, these issues was In re J.L.T., 56 Wn. App. 682, 785 P.2d 829, review denied, 114 Wn.2d 1020 (1990). In that case, parents whose parental rights had been terminated asserted that allowing religiously affiliated child welfare agencies to file termination petitions impermissibly entangled church and state, in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.