Appellate lawyers clash over cultural-bias claim in parental-rights termination

Colin Patrick, counsel for the appellant father, told the appellate panel the order terminating Mr. M’s parental rights to his daughter, ICMM, should be reversed because it ‘‘sits upon a rotten foundation of bias and cultural incompetency.’’ He urged the court to review the claim under RAP 2.5, arguing the trial judge explicitly connected Mr. M’s cultural and ethnic background to an inability to parent and that this connection had ‘‘identifiable consequences on the outcome.’’

Patrick criticized a key psychological evaluation by Dr. Swing as ‘‘biased and methodological fraud,’’ saying the department relied on that report throughout the dependency and that reliance undermined any claim it had provided culturally competent services. He also argued the court ordered psychological services were not met with an adequate, court-qualified evaluation, and emphasized differences between a psychological evaluation and a neuropsychological one, saying the state never proved equivalence.

Representing the Department of Children, Youth and Families, Josh Choate asked the panel to affirm the termination order. Choate said Henderson v. Thompson is not on point and urged the court to assess whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and whether the record shows the decision was a product of racial bias. He stressed the department provided services over a five-year dependency, including Spanish translation services, culturally competent therapists, and parenting programs, and that the record contains efforts to secure appropriate evaluations.

Choate pointed to the record that the court had revisited evaluations when concerns arose (exhibit 15, Sept. 2022) and that the department sought nationally available experts when local options were unavailable. He described Dr. Sol Chaney’s parent–child observations and an exhibit (exhibit 21, Sept. 2023) that suspended visitation after concluding ICMM was being retraumatized by visits and ordered parent–child observation to substitute for that component in future psychological evaluations. Choate argued termination flowed from ‘‘years of unremedied parental deficiencies,’’ the father’s refusal to acknowledge his role in abuse, and the child’s ‘‘urgent need for permanency’’ after about five years of dependency.

Panel members pressed both sides on procedural preservation (whether the cultural-bias issues were raised below) and statutory thresholds for court-ordered services, asking whether the record supports that the department satisfied RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) and related requirements. Counsel differed about whether the trial court’s references to culture were incidental contextual observations (permissible) or an explicit, prejudicial connection to the ultimate findings (forbidden).

The oral argument concluded after the panel offered additional questioning; the court noted the matters were submitted and recessed.