Court of Appeals weighs mother's bid for discretionary review in SRD child-removal case

Division 2 of the Washington State Court of Appeals heard oral argument on a mother's motion for discretionary review of a juvenile-court order that removed her child, SRD, from the home. Petitioner counsel Catherine Glinski urged the court to grant review to clarify when a parent is "available to care" for a child; counsel for the Department of Children, Youth and Families, Caitlin Conahan, asked the court to deny review, saying substantial evidence supported the removal.

Glinski told the court the mother had implemented the juvenile court's safety plan, kept the home free of hazards, created a child-friendly play area, and that the child's weight had been "trending upwards" under the mother's care. "We didn't have perfection. We had progress," Glinski said, arguing the appellate court should develop a clearer standard that differentiates mere physical presence from meaningful availability to parent.

Conahan responded that the juvenile court properly exercised discretion and that the record showed the mother had deficiencies that "jeopardize the child's rights to basic nurture, physical and mental health, and safety." Conahan summarized months of noncompliance: missed weekly weight checks, limited use of women, infants, and children services (WIC) and daycare, refusal or failure to allow unannounced visits, incomplete participation in birth-to-3 parenting education and mental-health treatment, and incomplete background checks for a partner. She told the court that over an approximately four-month period the child gained only about 1 pound and "remained dangerously underweight." "The department then took it upon itself to begin transporting the child because the mother was not transporting the child," Conahan said.

The bench questioned both attorneys about the record. The court asked whether the record contained a medical determination as to the cause of the child's low weight; Conahan stated the motion record did not clearly show a medical finding of cause but that a doctor had found the child underweight and that following medical feeding recommendations had produced weight gain. Glinski acknowledged imperfect compliance with services but emphasized the child's measurable progress while placed with the mother.

Both sides addressed whether the case merits appellate development of the "available to care" standard. Glinski argued the interim-removal context makes appellate guidance necessary; Conahan replied that controlling precedent and statutory standards already give trial courts the framework to decide whether a parent lacks capacity and thus is unavailable.

After argument, the court took the matter under advisement and said it will issue a ruling as soon as possible. No decision was announced at the hearing.

Next steps: The Court of Appeals will issue a written decision resolving whether discretionary review will be granted and, if so, whether the juvenile-court removal order will be upheld or reversed.