Court of Appeals hears linked review over mootness, ICWA issues and removal of autistic child

Division 2 of the Washington Court of Appeals heard argument July 22 in linked discretionary reviews arising from dependency proceedings for a child identified in the record as TR.

Jennifer Dobson, counsel for the father, urged the court to reach the merits on whether the original shelter‑care order satisfied state law standards and whether the record shows the trial court considered the child’s autism‑related needs. "When considering the risks associated with removal of an autistic child, the court must show they at least considered the unique risks that that child will face in foster care due to the traits inherent in autism," Dobson told the court, arguing the written record does not reflect that analysis.

Kristen Bellore, representing the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, told the panel there is "no probable error here" and that subsequent continued shelter‑care orders preserved the necessary findings. She argued those later orders evaluate facts that arose after the initial removal and that a reversal would not necessarily produce immediate relief because the lower court would reassess shelter‑care factors on current facts.

Ben Norman, counsel for the Puyallup Tribe, emphasized the tribe’s longstanding role with the Indian Child Welfare Act and said that ICWA protections apply from the outset for eligible or enrolled children. "ICWA applies," he said, arguing that tribal representatives and experts regularly participate in these proceedings and that the record shows emergency removal and repeated assessments supporting continued shelter care.

The court spent substantial time probing whether later 30‑day continued shelter‑care orders can moot a challenge to the initial removal—Dobson argued those orders preserve the original status quo rather than producing new contested findings, while the department countered they incorporate sufficient subsequent factfinding. The parties also debated whether a finding that active efforts occurred later in the case cures an earlier alleged failure to show reasonable efforts at the time of removal.

Dobson additionally challenged the trial court’s oral ruling, saying it applied an improper comparative standard by weighing foster‑care benefits against in‑home options rather than applying the statutory removal test. She said several professionals who regularly worked with TR recommended return to the home with services, while the department highlighted expert testimony and recorded behavioral improvements in out‑of‑home care.

The panel did not rule at the hearing. After argument, the court reserved decision and moved to a second linked matter.

The argument drew competing claims about factual findings, statutory interpretation (including active‑efforts and reasonable‑efforts standards), and the proper remedy if the initial shelter‑care order were found invalid. The court also asked parties to provide status updates for related dependency proceedings scheduled in the trial court.