Appellate panel hears arguments over racial-bias review standard in dependency guardianship of RT

SEATTLE — During oral argument in the dependency case concerning child RT, Chris Petrone, an attorney with the Washington Appellate Project representing the mother, urged the panel to adopt the objective observer standard for reviewing allegations of racial bias and to reverse the guardianship order entered in the juvenile court. "This court should adopt the objective observer standard and reverse the guardianship order," Petrone told the panel.

Petrone argued that "a paramount duty of courts at every level is to recognize and interrupt racial bias wherever it manifests itself," and he said dependency proceedings are particularly prone to subjective decisions "where bias is highly likely" and may have lifelong effects on children and families. He told the justices the trial record includes repeated testimony that the mother expressed beliefs about white people being "out to get her" and that witnesses characterized those beliefs as paranoid delusions rather than acknowledging the racial context that could make such fears understandable.

Patricia Allen, an Assistant Attorney General representing the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, replied that the guardianship "did both" — it was supported by the preponderance of the evidence and was not granted because of racial bias. Allen summarized trial evidence showing the mother, identified in the record as R. G., presented differently when medicated and when not, and that witnesses and experts tied particular behaviors (including isolation, unpredictable gestures, and prior striking) to schizophrenia symptoms that impaired her parenting capacity. "These are comments about how R.G. behaves when she's under these symptoms," Allen said, arguing the record explains the trial court’s reasoning.

The panel’s questioning focused both on whether the objective observer standard is the proper vehicle for appellate review and on procedural prerequisites that might limit review absent trial-court objections. One member noted that some precedents applying the objective observer approach arose in contexts where a party had preserved the issue below through a motion for a new trial or contemporaneous objection. Petrone countered that the Washington Supreme Court has applied the objective observer inquiry in contexts without trial objections and that the written findings here — including what counsel cited as "paragraph 2.7 E1 F" describing statements about white people and government tracking — give the appellate court a record an objective observer could review.

Allen urged caution about transplanting a jury-oriented standard into bench trials, saying judges provide written findings and oral opinions that reveal the reasons for their decisions and thus give appellate courts specific factors to review. She described an ideal three-step path for addressing possible trial bias: a contemporaneous objection in the trial court, a motion for a new trial or reconsideration (or a reference/evidentiary hearing if needed) to develop a fuller record, and then an appeal. "We don't decide it on our own right," she said, arguing the record in this case was "not sufficient" to conclude racial bias affected the decision.

Counsel for the mother acknowledged that the objective observer standard originated in jury contexts but said it has been extended in other areas (for example, pretrial search-and-seizure and Miranda contexts) and that judges are not immune to racial bias. He urged the panel to review the trial court’s explicit findings about the mother’s statements in context to determine whether race could be viewed as a factor.

The panel asked whether an evidentiary reference hearing was necessary; counsel for the mother said no and argued the record was adequate for appellate review. After rebuttal, the panel thanked counsel and announced the matter was submitted.

No decision was announced from the bench; the case was taken under submission and the court recessed.