Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dependency Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears father's claim of judge bias in BP dependency case
Summary
In an accelerated review of Case No. 60911-8, the father argued the dependency court violated procedural due process and displayed bias; the Department of Children, Youth, and Families urged the court to affirm dependency, vacate the disposition, and remand for a new disposition hearing. The court took the matter under review and will issue a written ruling.
The Washington Court of Appeals Division II heard arguments Jan. 7 in an accelerated review of a dependency case involving an infant identified as BP.
David Wen, counsel for the father, argued the dependency court denied SP a separate, meaningful disposition hearing and repeatedly showed bias in its questioning, crossing from neutral adjudicator to advocate. "The dependency court crossed the line between its role of a neutral arbiter to that of an advocate in favor of the department," Wen told the panel, saying the alleged errors are manifest and warrant de novo review under RAP 2.5(a).
Commissioner Aurora Burse, presiding, pressed Wen on preservation and materiality, asking whether the constitutional claims were raised below and what the clearest examples of bias were. Wen pointed to repeated, arguably leading and accusatory questions directed at the parents and to the court’s alleged use of extrinsic criminal-history information not introduced in evidence.
Renee Watkins, representing the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, told the court the department concedes the father and child were denied a meaningful disposition hearing and asked the panel to vacate the disposition and remand for a new disposition hearing. "The father and BP are entitled to a meaningful disposition hearing as to BP's placement," Watkins said, while arguing the department believes the dependency finding itself is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.
Watkins also urged the court to apply the narrow "manifest error" standard for appellate review of some constitutional claims and said the father waived at least some objections by not contemporaneously objecting at trial. She argued the record includes admissions about arrests, outstanding warrants and treatment status that support the dependency finding.
In rebuttal, Wen reiterated that the only explanation for the commissioner’s knowledge of certain criminal-history details is reliance on an external source not in the record and that the proper remedy is remand for a new trial or disposition proceeding to determine whether dependency is supported.
Commissioner Burse asked procedural questions about the children’s current custody status (the department said they have not been returned to the mother's care) and confirmed the matter may proceed in King County if further proceedings are needed. "Because it's on accelerated review, I will issue a written ruling as quickly as I can," the commissioner said, and the court took the matter under advisement.
The court did not issue a ruling from the bench; the written decision is pending.
