Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Supreme Court: Must show unfit parent to terminate parental relationship

In re Welfare of AB

The first step in a termination is proving six factors by clear and cogent evidence under RCW 13.34.180(1):

(a) That the child has been found to be a dependent child;

(b) That the court has entered a dispositonal 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 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;

(e) That there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be returned to the parent in the future . . . . ; [and]

(f) That the continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration in to a stable and permanent home.

So that analysis is step 1. Step 2 involves looking for the best interests of the child from a preponderance. The trial court issued a general finding on RCW 13.34.180(1), and findings in its order that "parroted" the language of sections (d) and (e). Nowhere did it find that Salas, the parent of A.B., was unfit [ed. - which, from the statute, doesn't appear to be a requirement...unless you tie it to (e)...ahhh, nevermind, the unfit parent at the time of the hearing comes from Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982).]

So, given my little editors note above, that alone is reason to reverse. Can't go against a Supreme Court mandate in terms of those parental rights.





Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.