(dissenting) — Prior to March 2, 1982, Terri Steinbach petitioned for and was granted by court order an alternative residential placement (ARP). Terri had been informed by her mother that she was "allowed to visit us but not to be there at any time nor to reside there." Her mother also testified Terri could visit if she called first but that Terri had not called to visit on March 2, 1982. It was on this date that Terri and several companions entered the house by forcible entry through a boarded-up window. The question before the court is whether this forcible entry by Terri was "otherwise privileged" (RCW 9A.52.010(3)).
The majority answers in the affirmative and cites In re Sumey, 94 Wn.2d 757, 621 P.2d 108 (1980) in support of its position. Sumey involved the question of whether the residential placement procedures of former RCW 13.32 violate due process by authorizing placement of a minor without a prior finding of parental unfitness. In that case, the child had petitioned the court and been granted an ARP. Her parents challenged the constitutionality of the statute. As the majority points out, the case discusses the importance of the parent-child relationship. The holding, however, is that the "limited infringement upon parental rights" by the *465ARP does not violate due process. Implicit in this holding is that under an ARP the "rights" which parent or child may have under usual circumstances are changed.
Furthermore, as the Court of Appeals noted in State v. Steinbach, 35 Wn. App. 473, 667 P.2d 641 (1983), this court has said that an ARP "is predicated on the existence of family conflict of sufficient magnitude that the parents and child are unable to live in the same home even with the assistance of counseling or other rehabilitative social services." In re Sumey, supra at 761.
Thus, when there has been an ARP, the parents have no right to prevent the placement nor does the minor child have any privilege to be in the house until the ARP is discontinued under the terms of RCW 13.32A.190. Even if, however, as the majority argues, the ARP order did not in and of itself terminate Terri's privilege to enter her mother's home, this privilege was specifically removed by the mother at the time of the ARP. No authority is cited by the majority nor am I aware of any which holds that under the circumstances of this case a child has a legal privilege to forcibly enter a parent's home for the purpose of committing a theft.
The majority distinguishes In re G.L., 73 Ill. App. 3d 467, 391 N.E.2d 1108 (1979) because the legal custody of the minor had been placed with the State and because G. L. was expressly told by his parents not to enter the family home until he was no longer on drugs. The factual distinctions between this case and In re G.L. are irrelevant. Here, the minor child, at her own request, was placed outside the homes of either of her natural parents. The testimony indicates her mother, whose home was broken into, did not know where Terri was living. There is no dispute but that Terri entered the residence of her mother at a time when she was not allowed in the home and that she entered with intent to commit a crime by forcibly removing a board from a window in the back of the residence.
I concur with the observation of the Court of Appeals that there
*466was sufficient evidence by which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Steinbach was not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to enter and remain in her mother's residence on the date of the burglary.
State v. Steinbach, 35 Wn. App. at 480.
The majority cites no authority nor do I believe either authority or common sense would find that under these circumstances Terri had a privilege to enter her mother's home. I would affirm.
Brachtenbach, Dimmick, and Pearson, JJ., concur with Dolliver, J.