IN RE J.R. 230 P.3d 1087 (2010)

May 11, 2010

OUTCOME: Prevailed for client (Court affirmed lower court's decision, further review subsequently denied)

In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, affirmed a judgment from the Yakima Superior Court denying appellant-child’s petition for reinstatement of his birth ... mother’s parental rights, holding that appellant did not meet the statutory criteria for filing a reinstatement petition and, further, that the statute did not violate appellant’s substantive due process or equal protection rights. The court found that appellant did not meet the statutory requirements, which allow a child to petition to reinstate previously terminated parental rights if the child has not achieved his or her permanency plan within three years of the termination, because he had been placed in a dependency guardianship within three years of the order terminating parental rights, despite that fact that the guardianship ultimately failed. Further, the court found that the statute did not violate appellant’s substantive due process rights as he did not have a fundamental right to reinstatement of his parent’s previously extinguished rights and the statute was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Finally, the court stated that the application of the statute did not violate appellant’s right to equal protection as appellant failed to prove that the statute was administered in a way which discriminated against similarly situated persons. The appellant argued the trial court misinterpreted the statute. The court concluded the statute was unambiguous and if the legislature had intended the reinstatement statute to include children who lose a permanent placement many years after termination of parental rights, it would have explicitly provided for such a situation. The court also rejected the appellant's claim that the statute violated his substantive due process and equal protection rights. The concurrence seeks clarification from the legislature re: the statute and its desired applicability to a child presenting a fact pattern like this where permanency is established within 3 years but later disrupts.