Board of Appeals hears challenge to juvenile courtsuspension of father's visits; ruling deferred

Commissioner Aurora Burse, presiding at Division 2 of the Washington State Board of Appeals, heard oral argument on June 17, 2026, in Case No. 61945-8, a motion for discretionary review brought by the father (initials JVT) challenging a juvenile court order that continued to suspend his visitation with his child, RH.

Tiffany Ma, counsel for the father, told the Board that "visitation is the right of a family in dependency proceedings" and argued the juvenile court erred by continuing to suspend visits until the father completed domestic-violence (DV) treatment and provided certain records. Ma said the legislature directs maximum parent-child contact and that any restriction must be based on a current, concrete risk to the child's health, safety or welfare rather than on historical behavior or as a de facto sanction for incomplete services.

Ma urged the Board to treat the January review hearing as a fresh assessment, not merely a carryover of an August order, and relied in part on the Board's earlier decision in "TLG," which she said rejected conditioning visits on service completion when the lower court did not find a current risk of harm. She emphasized that the record showed recent steps by the father toward engagement and that the suspension in August stemmed from text messages to social workers rather than an incident witnessed by the child.

Representing the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Caitlin Conahan urged denial of the father's motion. "The evidence shows that the father had harmed RH at a visit in May 2025 and that he presented a concrete risk of harm to RH's health, safety, and welfare," she said. Conahan told the Board the juvenile court appropriately exercised discretion in suspending visitation and that discretionary review was not warranted because the juvenile court had not substantially altered the status quo or departed from accepted procedures to the degree that review was required.

Conahan argued the juvenile court's August action responded to a pattern of outbursts, abusive communications and concerns about the father's ability to control himself without medication management and mental-health treatment. She told the Board that supervised or remote visits would still involve a supervisor or caregiver who could be exposed to the father's behavior and that the court had reasonable grounds to require medication and treatment records before resuming contact.

In rebuttal, Ma said the record reflects the father's progress, citing the Guardian ad Litem's report noting improvements in demeanor and motivation, and argued a one-hour remote supervised visit posed little risk because a supervisor could end the call quickly. She asked the Board to grant review so the juvenile court's decision could be examined given the father's recent engagement in services.

Commissioner Burse acknowledged the record showed the father had made some progress but said she would take the matter under consideration because it involves an ongoing child-welfare proceeding and because mootness could depend on the parties' current visitation status. She directed the parties to submit a status update on visitation by letter to the Board's case manager (with copies to opposing counsel) and said she would issue a written ruling as soon as practicable. The hearing was then adjourned.

The Board did not announce a decision at the hearing; the outcome will depend on the written ruling and any status information the parties submit as directed.