twur, i u- Ar
Z0hKOV-3 AH 9:07
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In re the Dependency of:
DIVISION ONE
L.D., DOB: 09/24/2011
No. 71207-1-1
Minor child.
CORNELIUS DEMPS,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant,
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES,
FILED: November 3, 2014
Respondent.
Per Curiam—Cornelius Demps appeals the trial court's dependency and
dispositional orders finding his son L.D. dependent, placing L.D. in out-of-home
care, and requiring him to participate in services. He contends that he was
denied procedural due process when (1) the trial court reopened the dependency
fact-finding hearing to hear evidence regarding a domestic violence incident that
occurred after the parties had rested, and (2) the State was allowed to present
unsworn evidence at the dispositional hearing in support of its recommendation
that Demps undergo a domestic violence assessment. Because the trial court
No. 71207-1-1/2
did not reopen the fact-finding hearing, and because Demps's challenge to the
dispositional order is moot, we affirm.
FACTS
L.D. was born on September 24, 2011. On March 1, 2013, the Department
filed a dependency petition based on concerns that (1) Demps assaulted L.D.'s
mother, Shauntae Patterson,1 (2) both Demps and Patterson physically abused
L.D.'s older sibling, and (3) Patterson was inebriated when picking up L.D. from
day care. At the time the petition was filed, Demps was alleged to be L.D.'s father
but paternity had not been established.
The dependency fact-finding hearing began on August 12, 2013. Demps
testified that he had an appointment with the King County Prosecutor's Office on
August 14 to be swabbed for paternity testing. After all parties delivered closing
argument, the trial court continued the fact-finding hearing to August 28 in order
to obtain the paternity results before ruling.
The test results confirmed that Demps was the father of L.D. However, on
or about August 21, Demps allegedly physically and sexually assaulted
Patterson. The trial court continued the dependency fact-finding again to
September 16 to permit the parties to investigate the new allegations.
The State sought to reopen its case in chief in order to present evidence
about the incident. At a hearing on the State's motion on September 16, the trial
court ruled:
Patterson agreed to the establishment of dependency and is not a party to this appeal.
No. 71207-1-1/3
What I'm going to do is review the record on the fact-finding, make
the final determination as to whether there has been establish [sic]
dependency apart from this new allegation. Ifthat's the case, I'll
make that determination, then you won't need to reopen, at least to
the fact-finding portion of the case. We'll still have to reopen as to
disposition - well, we haven't done disposition, so I'll have to [sic]
disposition still.
On September 20, 2013, the trial court issued a memorandum decision in
which it found that the Department had proven L.D. was dependent as defined in
RCW 13.34.030(5)(c) because (1) Demps did not attempt to establish paternity
until the fact-finding was underway, (2) Demps's claims that he was unaware that
Patterson was physically abusing the children was not credible, and (3) Demps
acknowledged he needed parenting assistance but declined to participate in a
parenting assessment when it was offered by the Department. The trial court
stated that it did not need "further evidence upon which to base the finding of
dependency as to the father." It scheduled a dispositional hearing for October
28.
The parties submitted briefing and exhibits for the dispositional hearing.
The Department's exhibits included an unsworn declaration of L.D.'s social
worker, Megan Stampfli. Stampfli recommended that L.D. be placed out of
Demps's care and that Demps be required to participate in domestic violence
batterers' treatment. Stampfli stated that, after reviewing the police reports and
hospital records from the August 21 incident and interviewing both parents, she
found Patterson's version of events to be more credible than Demps's. No party
requested to take oral testimony at the hearing.
No. 71207-1-1/4
On November 4, 2013, the trial court entered a combined dependency and
dispositional order. The order stated that the child was dependent pursuant to
RCW 13.34.030(5)(c), consistent with the trial court's earlier memorandum
decision. The trial court ordered that L.D. be placed with his paternal aunt and
that Demps be required to do urinalysis testing, a fathers engagement program,
a parenting assessment, and a domestic violence assessment. Demps appeals.
DECISION
In the context of a dependency proceeding, "[d]ue process requires
that parents have notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to be
represented by counsel." In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 611, 836
P.2d 200 (1992); see also RCW 13.34.090(1) (party in dependency
proceedings has a right to introduce evidence, to be heard on his or her
own behalf, and to examine witnesses). Demps contends that he was
denied due process at the dependency fact-finding hearing when the trial
court reopened the evidence to allow the Department to provide evidence
about the August 21 incident because he was deprived of the opportunity
to cross-examine Stampfli or call witnesses of his own. But Demps is
mistaken. The record shows that the trial court denied the State's motion
to reopen the evidence and did not consider the August 21 incident, finding
that the evidence already presented established a basis for the
establishment of dependency.
Demps also claims that he was denied due process when the trial
court ordered him to undergo a domestic violence assessment based on
No. 71207-1-1/5
Stampfli's unsworn declaration. But the record shows that Demps has
completed the domestic violence assessment and L.D. has been returned
to his care. An issue is moot if it is not possible for this court to provide
effective relief. Klickitat County Citizens Against Imported Waste v.
Klickitat County, 122 Wn.2d 619, 631, 860 P.2d 390, 866 P.2d 1256
(1993). Generally this court will not consider a moot issue unless it
involves matters of continuing and substantial public interest. Bavand v.
OneWest Bank. F.S.B.. 176 Wn. App. 475, 510, 309 P.3d 636 (2013).
Because the issue has been rendered moot and is not one of public
interest, we decline to address it.
We affirm the trial court's order of dependency and disposition as to
Demps.
FOR THE COURT: