Court of Appeals hears challenge to return of 3-year-old after alleged abuse

Division 2 of the Washington Court of Appeals heard argument on Jan. 14, 2026, in a motion for discretionary review challenging a juvenile-court order that returned a 3-year-old child to the mother after allegations of nonaccidental injuries.

Monique Mistry, counsel for the father, told the court the return order was "manifestly unreasonable" and that the juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard by failing to consider or expressly state the child's best interests under RCW 13.34.138(3)(c). Mistry said the record contains no testimony, declarations, or exhibits and emphasized facts she said the juvenile court overlooked: unexplained head injuries to the child, the child's identification of the mother's partner, Peter Fontana, as responsible for harm, the partner's later act of dousing the home with gasoline and threatening suicide, and delays in the mother's seeking medical care. "Based on this record, the placement was based on hope, not on evidence," Mistry argued.

Jody Campbell, an assistant attorney general representing the department, urged the court to deny discretionary review, saying the juvenile court had a robust dependency record documenting the mother's sobriety, efforts to leave an abusive partner, restraining orders, and steps toward stable housing. Campbell said the juvenile court conducted an on-the-record colloquy with the mother and made factual findings that supported returning the child under the statutory framework. "Theres an entire dependency record in this case showing how the mother had corrected her parental deficiencies over time," Campbell said.

The presiding commissioner questioned whether a best-interest finding must be expressly stated or could be implicit in the record. Campbell pointed to the safety planwhich she described as requiring department social-worker visits twice weekly, guardian ad litem visits once weekly, grandfather check-ins and in-home servicesand to the juvenile courts factual findings supporting its decision. Mistry responded that the safety-plan contacts could occur off-site and that the record did not show the frequency or intensity of monitoring, arguing that the written order and oral ruling lacked traditional best-interest findings.

The court did not rule at argument. The presiding commissioner said the court would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling as early as possible.

Why it matters: The case centers on how courts apply the best-interest standard in child-welfare placements and how much factual record is required before returning a child to a parent after serious safety concerns. The appellate courts forthcoming decision could affect the evidentiary baseline juvenile courts must record when ordering reunification in contested cases.

What happened next: The court took the motion for discretionary review under advisement; no decision was announced at the hearing.