IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Dependency of
No. 75110-7-1
E.A.E.,
DOB: 6/18/14 DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES,
Respondent,
V. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JERRY JASSO-RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant.
FILED: April 24, 2017
SPEARMAN, J. — Jerry Jasso-Rodriguez appeals from the order terminating his
parental rights to his daughter E.E. He contends that the juvenile court failed to
adequately consider the statutory factors applicable to incarcerated parents and that the
Department of Social and Health Services (Department)failed to prove that(1)
continuation of the parent-child relationship diminished E.E.'s prospects for integration
into a stable and permanent home;(2) all necessary services were offered or provided;
and (3)there was little likelihood that parental deficiencies could be remedied in the
near future. Jasso-Rodriguez also argues that the juvenile court violated his due
No. 75110-7-1/2
process rights by failing to provide adequate notice of an alleged parental deficiency.
Substantial evidence supports the relevant findings and Jasso-Rodriguez fails to
demonstrate a due process violation. We affirm.
FACTS
E.E. was born on June 18, 2014. At the time, Jerry Jasso-Rodriguez had served
about two months of his 66-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine and felon in possession of a firearm. Jasso-Rodriguez was
incarcerated in a federal prison in Victorville, California, and did not learn of E.E.'s birth
until several months later. Jasso-Rodriguez had a brief relationship with E.E.'s mother,
Michaela Anderson, in late 2013, while he was separated from his wife Janishay Bernal,
and did not know Anderson had become pregnant.
Jasso-Rodriguez is the father of five other children, including three children with
Bernal. Jasso-Rodriguez acknowledged that at the time of his arrest for the current
offenses, he was dealing drugs to support himself and had been abusing prescription
pain killers.
Law enforcement officers took E.E. into protective custody because of the
mother's substance abuse problems, and the Department filed a dependency petition
on September 25, 2014.' E.E., who was about three months old at the time, has
remained in the same foster home since then. E.E. was about 20 months old at the time
of the termination trial in March 2016.
1 Anderson later relinquished her parental rights and is not a party to this appeal.
-2-
No. 75110-7-1/3
Jasso-Rodriguez established paternity in February 2015 and in April 2015,
agreed to a dependency order under RCW 13.34.030(c)(no parent capable of caring for
the child). The disposition order required Jasso-Rodriguez to participate in parenting
classes, "if offered in [the]father's prison."2 Noting that Jasso-Rodriguez was
incarcerated in California and that E.E. was an infant, the order also provided that
"[v]isitation will be addressed when realistic. ... However, the [Department] will make
efforts to facilitate telephone contact, the exchange of cards, letters & gifts."3
Subsequent dependency review orders in June and November 2015 included similar
provisions regarding parenting classes and the facilitation of contact. The June 2015
dependency review order also directed Jasso-Rodriguez to participate in drug and
alcohol related assessments, treatment, and relapse prevention services that were
available while incarcerated. The Department filed a termination petition on July 31,
2015.
At the termination trial, Jasso-Rodriguez testified that because of the restrictions
at the maximum security prison in Victorville, he was allowed to participate in only one
program at a time, for about one to one and a half hours per day. At the time he learned
about E.E., Jasso-Rodriguez was enrolled in a general education development(GED)
course. Jasso-Rodriguez continued to participate in the GED program until he became
eligible for the parenting program in January 2016.
2 Exhibit (Ex.)8 at 8.
3 Ex. 8 at 9.
-3-
No. 75110-7-1/4
Jasso-Rodriguez began the parenting class in January or February 2016, but
attended only three sessions. In early March, approximately one week before the
termination trial, he was transferred to a federal correctional facility in Sheridan, Oregon,
where he was accepted into a federal prison substance abuse program. The minimum
time needed to complete the substance abuse program was about nine months.
Jasso-Rodriguez acknowledged that he had frequent contact with Sharon
Cremin, E.E.'s social worker, and the guardian ad litem (GAL)through email, letters,
and telephone calls. Cremin provided him with updates about E.E. and sent him
pictures on two occasions.
Cremin was unable to facilitate telephone contact between Jasso-Rodriguez and
E.E. because E.E. was so young and nonverbal. For the same reason, Cremin
determined that she could not facilitate written communications between E.E. and
Jasso-Rodriguez. On one occasion, very early in the dependency, Jasso-Rodriguez
asked whether E.E. could visit him at Victorville, but he understood that was not
possible because of his incarceration and the distance involved.
Jasso-Rodriguez's scheduled release date is March 2019. He testified that if he
successfully completed the substance abuse program, his sentence might be reduced
by twelve to eighteen months, meaning a release date between September 2017 and
March 2018.
Jasso-Rodriguez requested that E.E. be placed with a paternal relative. Multiple
relatives expressed an interest to the Department in providing placement for E.E. But at
-4-
No. 75110-7-1/5
the time of the termination trial, the only family that had completed the application was
permanently disqualified.
Anna Krauss, the guardian ad litem, testified that E.E. was "doing great" in her
current placement. She testified that the foster parents were satisfying E.E.'s cultural
needs and were supportive of maintaining ties with E.E.'s maternal and paternal
relatives. Krauss had been in constant contact with Jasso-Rodriguez about his progress
with services.
Because Jasso-Rodriguez had not developed or maintained a relationship with
E.E., Krauss recommended termination of his parental rights. She testified that given
E.E.'s young age, the necessary delay for the completion of Jasso-Rodriguez's
sentence would diminish her prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent
home. Krauss believed that under the circumstances, E.E. was entitled to permanency
as soon as possible and that termination was in her best interest.
At the conclusion of the termination trial, the juvenile court summarized the
current circumstances in the following finding of fact:
The father has been in prison for [E.E.'s] entire life. He has never
met her, spoken to her, or established any relationship with her. He
did request a visit in California at the prison, but acknowledged to
the assigned social worker that that was probably not practical. So
at this point the father has had no contact whatsoever with [E.E.],
and she is completely unaware that he is her father.5
4 Verbatim Report of Proceedings(VRP)at 196.
5 Findings of Fact(FF) 2.13 at Clerk's Papers(CP) at 40.
-5-
No. 75110-7-1/6
After considering the statutory factors applicable to incarcerated parents, the court
found that the Department had established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence
each of the six termination factors under RCW 13.34.180(1)(a) through (f) and that
termination was in E.E.'s best interest under RCW 13.34.190(1). The court entered
extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law.'
DISCUSSION
Parents have fundamental liberty and privacy interests in the care and custody of
their children. In re Welfare of A.J.R., 78 Wn. App. 222, 229, 896 P.2d 1298(1995)
(citing In re J.B.S., 123 Wri.2d 1, 12, 863 P.2d 1344 (1993)); Santosky v. Kramer, 455
U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982). Before terminating parental
rights, Washington courts must follow a two-step process.
First, the Department must prove the following six statutory requirements by
clear, cogent, and convincing evidence:
(a) The child has been found to be a dependent child;
(b) That the court has entered a dispositional order pursuant to
RCW 13.34.130;
(c) That the child has been removed ... from the custody of the
parent for a period of at least six months pursuant to a finding of
dependency;
(d) That the 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;
'We granted Jasso-Rodriguez's motion to file two supplemental assignments of error to
findings of fact.
-6-
No. 75110-7-1/7
(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
the child's prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent
home.. . .
RCW 13.34.180(1)(a) through (f); see also In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908, 911,
232 P.3d 1104(2010); RCW 13.34.190.
Second, if the Department proves the six termination factors, the court then
determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, if termination is in the child's best
interests. RCW 13.34.190(1)(b).
"Our role in reviewing a trial court's decision to terminate parental rights is to
determine whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact by
clear, cogent, and convincing evidence." In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d
466, 477, 379 P.3d 75(2016)(citing In re Dependency of K.S.C., 137 Wn.2d 918, 925,
976 P.2d 113(1996). Clear, cogent and convincing evidence exists when the evidence
shows the ultimate fact at issue to be highly probable. In re Dependency of K.R., 128
Wn.2d 129, 141, 904 P.2d 1132(1995).
An appellate court defers to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony,
credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Camarillo, 115
Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850(1990). Such deference is particularly important in
proceedings affecting the parent and child relationship because of "the trial judge's
advantage in having the witnesses before him or her.. . ." In re Welfare of A.W. and
M.W., 182 Wn.2d 689, 711, 344 P.3d 1186 (2015).
-7-
No. 75110-7-1/8
Continuation of the Parent and Child Relationship
On appeal, Jasso-Rodriguez contends that the Department failed to establish by
clear, cogent, and convincing evidence under RCW 13.34.180(f) that "continuation of
the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early
integration into a stable and permanent home." He argues that substantial evidence
failed to support the juvenile court's finding that he did not play a meaningful role in
E.E.'s life and that the court to failed to properly consider the statutory factors applicable
to incarcerated parents.
In 2013, the Legislature amended RCW 13.34.180(1)(f) to add three specific
factors that the trial court "shall consider" before terminating the rights of an
incarcerated parent:
[1] whether a parent maintains a meaningful role in his or her child's
life based on factors identified in RCW 13.34.145(5)(b);
[2] whether the department or supervising agency made reasonable
efforts as defined in this chapter; and
[3] whether particular barriers existed as described in RCW
13.34.145(5)(b) including, but not limited to, delays or barriers
experienced in keeping the agency apprised of his or her location
and in accessing visitation or other meaningful contact with the child.
The 2013 amendments also included RCW 13.34.145(5)(b), which set forth a
nonexclusive list of factors that the trial court may consider when determining whether
an incarcerated parent maintains a "meaningful role" in the child's life and the various
barriers that incarcerated parents face when maintaining such a role:
-8-
No. 75110-7-1/9
(i) The parent's expressions or acts of manifesting concern for the
child, such as letters, telephone calls, visits, and other forms of
communication with the child;
(ii) The parent's efforts to communicate and work with the
department or supervising agency or other individuals for the
purpose of complying with the service plan and repairing,
maintaining, or building the parent-child relationship;
(iii) A positive response by the parent to the reasonable efforts of
the department or the supervising agency;
(iv) Information provided by individuals or agencies in a reasonable
position to assist the court in making this assessment, including but
not limited to the parent's attorney, correctional and mental health
personnel, or other individuals providing services to the parent;
(v) Limitations in the parent's access to family support programs,
therapeutic services, and visiting opportunities, restrictions to
telephone and mail services, inability to participate in foster care
planning meetings, and difficulty accessing lawyers and
participating meaningfully in court proceedings; and
(vi) Whether the continued involvement of the parent in the child's
life is in the child's best interest.
See In re Parental Rights of K.J.B., 187 Wn.2d 592, 387 P.3d 1072(2017).
Consideration of the incarceration factors under RCW 13.34.180(f) means "a
weighing or balancing of facts, along with a resolution of that weighing." Id., 387 P.3d at
1078 (quoting In re Parental Rights to M.J., 187 Wn. App. 399, 409, 348 P.3d 1265
(2015)). But contrary to Jasso-Rodriguez's repeated assertions, the juvenile court need
not enter formal findings of fact to support its consideration. Id., 387 P.3d at 1079.
Nonetheless, the court's oral ruling and extensive written findings of fact here establish
that the court considered the mandatory statutory incarceration factors before
terminating Jasso-Rodriguez's parental rights. "The statute notably does not mandate
-9-
No. 75110-7-1/10
that a certain weight be afforded to the incarceration considerations." In re Welfare of
E.D., 195 Wn. App. 673, 695, 381 P.3d 1230(2016), review denied, 187 Wn.2d 1018,
390 P.3d 351 (2017).
Among other things, the juvenile court found that Jasso-Rodriguez had
expressed concern for E.E. by establishing paternity; agreeing to the dependency when
he was unavailable for placement; asking the social worker and guardian ad litem (GAL)
about how E.E. was doing; cooperating with the Department and GAL; asking for a visit
early in the proceeding; and requesting visitation and placement with paternal relatives.
The court acknowledged that Jasso-Rodriguez had done an "exceptional job"for an
incarcerated person in communicating and working with the Department, had
responded positively to the Department's efforts in attempting to participate in services,
and that "[c]onsistent with the limitations of his incarceration, he has made a sincere
effort to maintain that communication."8 The court also considered information from
individuals in a reasonable position to assist the court and whether the continued
involvement of the parent was in the child's best interest. See, RCW 13.34.145(5)(b)(iv),
(vi).
The court's findings also reflect consideration of the barriers and limitations that
Jasso-Rodriguez faced in developing a meaningful relationship with E.E., beginning with
his delay in learning about E.E.'s birth and his ability to establish paternity. The court
clearly recognized that incarceration in a maximum security facility resulted in
7 FF 2.25 CP at 42.
8 Id.
-10-
No. 75110-7-1/1 1
restrictions on Jasso-Rodriguez's ability to participate in services and in legal
proceedings. The court expressly noted that Jasso-Rodriguez was able "to participate
somewhat" by telephone in the termination trial, but that the record did not indicate
whether, or to what degree, he had been able to participate in other court proceedings,
including foster care planning meetings.' See, RCW 13.34.145(5)(b)(v). But the record
also demonstrated that Jasso-Rodriguez had access to the court-ordered services, was
able to use the telephone, email, and mail with some restrictions, and had access to his
attorney, the social worker, and the GAL.
Jasso-Rodriguez contends that the Department's failure to comply with the
dependency review hearing orders, which required the Department to "make efforts to
facilitate telephone contact and the exchange of cards and letters and pictures,"1°
created the primary barrier that prevented him from developing a meaningful
relationship with E.E. He argues the fact that E.E. was a nonverbal infant does not
excuse the Department's failure to comply.
The juvenile court acknowledged that the dependency review orders required the
Department to facilitate contact and that "the Department could have taken more
affirmative efforts to facilitate this."" Jasso-Rodriguez acknowledged that he had access
to the telephone and email in prison, with some limitations, and that he had regular and
frequent contact with his other children. Jasso-Rodriguez also repeatedly asked the
9 FF 2.29, CP at 42.
10 Ex. 10 at 10.
11 FF 2.24, CP 42.
-11-
No. 75110-7-1/12
Department to make arrangements for his relatives to visit E.E. Under the
circumstances, the record provides no support for Jasso-Rodriguez's claim on appeal
that he did not know he could attempt to arrange contact with E.E.
In this context, the court also considered what more the Department could have
done to facilitate a relationship between Jasso-Rodriguez and E.E. under the particular
circumstances here:
[E.E.] is now only 20 months old, and was three months old when
she went into placement. She does not know [Jasso-Rodriguez]
because he has been unavailable to form a relationship with her due
to his actions of committing federal felony offenses resulting in his
being incarcerated in California. Even if an occasional visit to him in
person in prison could have been worked out, it would not have
assisted a child of this age in developing a meaningful relationship
from her point of view, and this is really about the child's meaningful
relationship. The same is true for a child of this age for telephone,
Skype, email, or written contact. Certainly she could not respond to
written contact. Someone could have read something to her, but the
ability of a child at this age to understand who is communicating with
her, that communication is even happening during most of this time,
would be very limited, if possible at all. Therefore, the Court does
not find that there are other things the Department could have done
to help the child create a meaningful relationship with the father.12
Substantial evidence supports this finding.
"'Imprisonment alone does not necessarily justify the termination of parental
rights. But the parent's resulting inability to perform his or her parental obligations is
certainly relevant to the child's welfare." In re E.D., 195 Wn. App. at 690 (quoting In re
Dependency of J.W., 90 Wn. App. 417, 426, 953 P.2d 104 (1998)). In considering an
incarcerated parent's ability to maintain a meaningful role in a child's life, the court need
12 FF 2.26 at CP 27.
-12-
No. 75110-7-1/13
not "disregard the negative effects that incarceration may have on a delicate parent-
child relationship. . .[or] ignore the child's need for timely permanency." In re E.D., 195
Wn. App. at 695.
The juvenile court found that E.E. had been in the same foster home for 17
months, the only stable home she has ever known, and that she could not be integrated
into a permanent home until Jasso-Rodriguez's rights are terminated. The court also
thoroughly considered the statutory incarceration factors: whether Jasso-Rodriguez
played a meaningful role, whether the Department made reasonable efforts, and
whether particular barriers existed. Substantial evidence, including the length and
location of Jasso-Rodriguez's sentence, the circumstances of E.E.'s birth, her age, and
the length of the dependency, supports the finding that Jasso-Rodriguez did not play a
meaningful role in E.E.'s life and the determination that continuation of the parent-child
relationship clearly diminished E.E.'s prospects for early integration into a stable and
permanent home. RCW 13.34.180(1)(f).
Necessary Services
Under RCW 13.34.180(1)(d), the Department must prove by clear, cogent, and
convincing evidence that "all necessary services, reasonably available, capable of
correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been expressly
and understandably offered or provided." A service is necessary within the meaning of
this provision "if it is needed to address a condition that precludes reunification of the
parent and child." In re Dependency of D.L.B., 188 Wn. App. 905, 920, 355 P.3d 345
(2015), afrd, 186 Wn.2d 103, 376 P.3d 1099(2016)(citing In re Welfare of C.S., 168
-13-
No. 75110-7-1/14
Wn.2d 51, 56 n.3, 225 P.3d 953(2010)). The court may consider "any service received,
from whatever source, bearing on the potential correction of parental deficiencies." In re
Dependency of D.A., 124 Wn. App. 644, 651-52, 102 P.3d 847(2004)(citing In re
Dependency of C.T., 54 Wn. App. 490, 496-97, 798 P.3d 1170 (1990)).
Jasso-Rodriguez contends that the Department failed to establish this
requirement because it relied only on the services available in prison. He argues that
because he was ineligible to participate in more than one service at a time under the
prison rules at Victorville, the Department should have investigated whether outside
providers could have offered parenting classes or drug and alcohol assessment to him
at prison while he studied for his GED.
The dependency disposition and review orders required Jasso-Rodriguez to take
parenting classes and a drug and alcohol assessment while he was incarcerated and
eligible. At Victorville, Jasso-Rodriguez did not become eligible for additional classes or
services until he finished his GED, which did not occur until January 2016. After starting
parenting classes, Jasso-Rodriguez then transferred to another facility, where he was
eligible to begin a drug treatment program at the time of the termination trial.
The record shows that the necessary services were available to Jasso-Rodriguez
in prison and that the Department communicated regularly with him about his
participation in those services. Jasso-Rodriguez has not identified any authority
imposing on the Department an obligation to search for outside providers for the same
services.
-14-
No. 75110-7-1/15
Moreover, at the time of the termination trial, Jasso-Rodriguez still had three
years to serve on his sentence. He testified that if he successfully completed the drug
treatment program, which he had not yet started, he might receive a 12 to 18 month
reduction in his sentence. But such a reduction still meant another 18 months before he
could be released. Jasso-Rodriguez has not identified any services that would have
provided him with the ability to parent within the foreseeable future.
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that the
Department offered all necessary services capable of correcting parental deficiencies.
Jasso-Rodriguez challenges the court's finding that he chose to "defer" taking the
parenting class at Victorville in order to complete his GED.13 He relies primarily on his
own testimony that enrollment in the GED was "a mandatory thing."14 But there was
other testimony suggesting that Jasso-Rodriguez and his prison counselor had made a
voluntary decision to concentrate on completion of the GED before pursuing other
classes. Moreover, the court found that given the length of his sentence, "there was no
particular downside" for Jasso-Rodriguez to complete the GED before taking the other
court-ordered classes.15 Jasso-Rodriguez fails to demonstrate any material error.
Likelihood that Conditions Would be Remedied in the Near Future
Jasso-Rodriguez challenges the juvenile court's determination under RCW
13.34.180(1)(e) that "there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the
13 FE 2.15 at CP 25.
14 VRP at 47.
15 FF 2.15 at CP 40.
-15-
No. 75110-7-1/16
child can be returned to the parent in the near future." He argues that his willingness to
enroll in the substance abuse treatment program and comply with the other court-
ordered conditions demonstrates that the identified deficiencies can be remedied in the
near future.
What constitutes the "near future" is determined from the child's point of view and
depends on the age of the child and the circumstances of the child's placement. In re
Dependency of T.L.G., 126 Wn. App. 181, 205, 108 P.3d 156 (2005). The "near future"
for very young children such as E.E. generally involves no more than a few months.
See, e.g., In re Dependency of A.W., 53 Wn. App. 22, 765 P.2d 307(1988)(one year
not within foreseeable future of three year old); In re Dependency of P.A.D., 58 Wn.
App. 18, 792 P.2d 159(1990)(six months not within near future of 15 months old).
"[W]hat is perhaps eventually possible for the parent must yield to the child's present
need for stability and permanence." In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. 149, 166,
29 P.3d 1275(2001).
At the time of the termination trial, Jasso-Rodriguez's release date was still three
years away. Even if he successfully completed the drug treatment program that he had
not yet started and received the 12-18 month reduction in his sentence, his earliest
release date was still 18 months in the future. E.E. was 20 months old and had spent 17
months of her life in the same foster home. Under the circumstances, there was no
likelihood that conditions would be remedied to permit E.E.'s return in the near future.
Jasso-Rodriguez again asserts that the Department's failure to facilitate contacts
with E.E. resulted in his failure to develop a meaningful relationship. But for the reasons
-16-
No. 75110-7-1/17
set forth above, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that
Jasso-Rodriguez did not play a meaningful role in E.E.'s life and that under the
circumstances, there was little the Department could have done to facilitate a
meaningful relationship.
Best Interests of the Child
We accord the trial court broad discretion in determining whether termination is in
the child's best interests. In re Dependency of J.A.F., 168 Wn. App. 653, 670, 278 P.3d
673(2012). This determination necessarily rests on the specific facts of each case. In re
Welfare of M.R.H. and J.D.F., 145 Wn. App. 10, 28, 188 P.3d 510(2008).
Here, the evidence established that Jasso-Rodriguez had no meaningful
relationship with E.E. and had never had any direct contact with her. E.E. has no
understanding of her father and has not developed any bonds with him. Because of the
circumstances of Jasso-Rodriguez's incarceration and the uncertainty about the
ultimate length of his sentence, there is no reasonable likelihood that Jasso-Rodriguez
can develop any meaningful relationship with E.E. within the near future. The GAL
testified that E.E. was doing well in the current placement, that she was entitled to
permanency as soon as possible, and that the delay necessary for Jasso-Rodriguez to
complete his sentence would diminish E.E.'s prospects for integration into a stable and
permanent home.
Jasso-Rodriguez argues that his continued involvement is in E.E.'s best interest
because it will foster her cultural and familial needs. He contends that termination will
-17-
No. 75110-7-1/18
likely sever all relationships between E.E. and her paternal family members. The record
fails to support this claim.
E.E. spends time with her foster brothers, who are Hispanic-Filipino. Her foster
parents are working with E.E. in Spanish, including reading to her and teaching her a bit
of Spanish. The GAL testified that the foster parents are "totally supportive" of E.E.
maintaining ties with both her maternal and paternal relatives "as long as it's a good
situation for [E.E.]."16 Although there have been some delays and disputes about how
many relatives should visit E.E. at a time, E.E.'s paternal relatives have been able to
visit her multiple times.
Substantial evidence supports the court's determination that termination is in
E.E.'s best interest.
Domestic Violence
Jasso-Rodriguez contends that the juvenile court denied him due process when it
failed to notify him that his history of domestic violence could form the basis for
termination of his parental rights. See, In re Dependency of A.M.M., 182 Wn. App. 776,
332 P.3d 500(2014)(termination order relying on parental deficiency not identified in
the dependency or termination petitions violated due process). But the court expressly
found that it "cannot find [the history of domestic violence] a basis for termination."17
The evidence of Jasso-Rodriguez's domestic violence history was admitted
without objection. The fact that several of the court's findings refer to that evidence
16 VRP at 197.
17 FF 2.33.
-18-
No. 75110-7-1/19
provides no support for Jasso-Rodriguez's claim that the court relied on his domestic
violence history. Jasso-Rodriguez fails to demonstrate a due process violation.
Futility Doctrine
Jasso-Rodriguez contends that the legislature intended to discard the "futility
doctrine"18 when it amended the termination statute to include specific considerations for
incarcerated parents. See, In the Matter of the Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d
466, 483, 379 P.3d 75(2016)("The provision of services is futile where a parent is
unwilling or unable to participate in a reasonably available service that has been offered
or provided")(citing In re Dependency of Ramquist, 52 Wn. App. 854, 861, 765 P.2d 30
(1988)). But because this conclusory contention is raised for the first time in a reply brief
and is unsupported by adequate briefing, we decline to consider it.
We affirm the termination order.
Ce-
C,(4
J
WE CONCUR:
18 Reply Brief at 17.
-19-