Attorney for father asks Other Court to review September visitation order; state agency urges denial

An attorney for the father in two juvenile dependency cases asked the Other Court on Thursday to accept discretionary review of a September 16 visitation order, arguing the order both barred the father from seeking modification and imposed supervised visits without proof that the children were unsafe.

“My name is Sadie Lowe, and I represent the father, JW,” counsel told the court, arguing the order “took away the father's statutory right under RCW 13.34.150 to return to court by motion when circumstances change” and that the supervised‑visit restriction was not supported by evidence showing a present, concrete risk to the children. Lowe said visit notes reflected brief emotional reactions at the start of visits but otherwise safe interactions and that no medical provider had documented that the father's care posed a danger.

The Department of Children, Youth, and Families, represented by Rebecca Khalil, urged the court to deny review. Khalil said most of the challenged language is now moot, noted later orders expanded visitation, and maintained the trial court considered multiple sources of information—including caregiver reports, written submissions from CEW’s physician and an occupational therapist, and the father's Department of Corrections (DOC) travel restrictions—before setting a graduated visitation schedule.

Khalil told the court the September findings used advisory language and did not clearly or obviously prohibit future modification: “At most, this language is ambiguous,” she said, noting that visitation was subsequently modified twice and that the December 15 review order transitioned monitored visits to unsupervised visits after a two‑week monitored period.

Counsel and the bench also debated which parts of the order remain live. The department identified allocation of travel for visits as the only non‑moot portion, saying the trial court reasonably required the father to travel closer to CEW’s location while CEW was medically fragile and the occupational therapist had recommended against CEW traveling. Khalil said travel between the children’s locations and the father’s was roughly six hours per visit day and that the order contemplated one weekly visit in Olympia to split travel burden.

In rebuttal Lowe argued appellate review must be confined to what was before the trial court on September 16 and that post‑order materials cannot be used to “backfill” the record. She also emphasized the father’s ongoing DOC restrictions—he must remain at home at least eight consecutive hours per day, obtain DOC approval to travel outside the Vancouver area, relies on public transportation and works night shifts—that limit his ability to comply with travel expectations, and said the department is responsible for facilitating visits when restrictions prevent parental travel.

The court heard briefing filed by the children in the matter and posed several questions to counsel about the record. After argument the court took the motion under advisement and said it would issue a decision as soon as possible.

Why this matters: The dispute highlights tensions in dependency proceedings between (1) courts weighing multiple, sometimes conflicting sources of information about child safety and medical needs and (2) parents’ statutory rights to seek modification of visitation and reunification measures. The outcome could affect how trial courts phrase conditional or advisory language in visitation findings and the circumstances under which appellate courts accept discretionary review.

What remains: The court did not rule at the hearing. Counsel represented that unsupervised contact was occurring in practice but said there was no written order expressly authorizing unsupervised visits; the department said subsequent orders had expanded visitation. The court’s forthcoming ruling will resolve whether discretionary review is warranted and whether any portion of the September 16 order should be set aside or modified.