Other Court hears challenge to termination order over alleged missed services and open-adoption issue

On April 29, 2026, a panel of the Other Court heard oral argument in a motion for discretionary review in case no. 62358-7, a termination-of-parental-rights matter in which counsel disputed whether the state provided court-ordered services and whether open-adoption agreements should be considered in procedural-due-process analysis.

Jennifer Dobson, counsel for the mother, said the court could resolve the case on statutory-service grounds rather than reaching constitutional issues. "The state did not meet its burden under 13 34 1 8 0 1 d," Dobson said, pointing to a psychological evaluation by Dr. Swing she said recommended social and emotional services — including peer-led domestic-violence support groups — that were never referred or provided. Dobson added that the subsequent court-ordered case plan incorporated the evaluator's recommendations and that RCW 13.34.0205 required the department to coordinate and ask about supports for the parent.

Responding, Eric Rodriguez, counsel for one respondent, focused on the child's best interest. Rodriguez argued the mother "has not regularly been in her life since the dependency started in 2021," that visits were frequently missed or late, and that the child had formed a close bond with prospective adoptive parents who seek permanency. "The trial court did not err in finding termination was in [the child's] best interest," he said, urging the court to affirm.

Cherry Chen, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, asked the court to affirm for three reasons: substantial evidence shows the court-ordered services under RCW 13.34.181(d) were offered, the open-adoption-agreement argument should not be raised for the first time on appeal, and the record supports that termination is in the child's best interest. "The DV peer support groups were never court ordered," Chen said, adding that the language in a carried-over order did not mean an outstanding psychological evaluation required additional treatment beyond what the parties and trial court understood to be required.

The panel questioned counsel about the record. Dobson said social-worker testimony and the trial record did not include evidence that the department offered or specifically discussed open-adoption agreements with prospective adoptive parents, and she argued that terminating parental rights without a developed record about an OAA could foreclose the child's opportunity for an open adoption. Dobson also warned courts not to accept defense-counsel waivers of statutory elements as a substitute for the state's burden to prove each termination factor.

Chen countered that adopting an OAA requirement on appeal would ask courts to implement procedures not grounded in statute or case law and that Matthews v. Eldridge balancing, the state argued, does not weigh in the parent's favor because parental rights are severed whether termination is involuntary or voluntary, and termination proceedings already include multiple constitutional safeguards.

After rebuttal, during which Dobson reiterated the evaluator's findings tying the parent's past trauma to parental deficiencies, the presiding judge said the court would take the matter under advisement and issue a written ruling as soon as possible. The panel adjourned the commissioner's motion calendar for April 29, 2026.

What happens next: The court took the motion for discretionary review under consideration and has not issued a decision; counsel said they would await a written ruling that the court said it would circulate when ready.