Appeals court asked to review judge's remarks about mother's faith in dependency case

Colin Patrick, an attorney with the Washington Appellate Project representing the petitioner, asked Division II of the Washington State Court of Appeals to grant discretionary review, arguing that a trial judge’s comments about the mother’s religion crossed constitutional and procedural lines.

Patrick told the court that the trial judge’s oral ruling contained statements asking the mother to “reevaluate your faith” and that those remarks, combined with a finding of “no progress,” showed the court had not acted with “strict impartiality.” He cited case law he said requires a particularized neutrality test when parental religious practice is implicated.

“The trial court did not act with strict impartiality,” Patrick said, arguing the record showed limited progress and that the court’s language could be read as a religious critique rather than a neutral evaluation.

Kristen Bellori, counsel for the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, responded that the proper analysis is a three-step free-exercise inquiry and that petitioner failed at the second step because the juvenile court did not coerce or pressure the mother to violate a tenet of her faith. She said the court’s references to religion did not impose a burden on free exercise.

“She needs to focus on prioritizing the children over the father, which she has historically not done over the course of nearly two years of this dependency proceeding,” Bellori told the court, summarizing the department’s view of the record and the therapist’s findings about what the mother must do to make progress.

Bellori argued the record supported the juvenile court’s discretion to conclude the mother had not made sufficient progress to remove the dependency findings, noting the department’s report and incorporated therapist observations that the mother minimized abuse, continued to reference the father during visits despite orders, and failed to set safe boundaries for the children.

The chair repeatedly pressed petitioner's counsel for the factual context in which the trial judge made the quoted remarks and asked what, in the record, triggered the court’s statements. Patrick said the mother’s religious beliefs were a recurring aspect of the dependency proceedings and that, regardless of context, courts must make particularized findings before engaging in religious commentary that could suggest partiality.

Patrick used rebuttal time to reiterate that the mother lacked clarity about what the court expected and that vague exhortations to reconsider faith undermine the ability to review and correct potential religious bias in interim findings. He urged discretionary review on that basis.

The chair noted the children’s attorneys had ceded their argument time to the department. After arguments from both sides the court took the matter under advisement and said it would issue a ruling as soon as practicable.