In re Welfare of A.W. (Majority)
Annotate this CaseIn 2010, the Washington legislature enacted a new guardianship statute, chapter 13.36 RCW, to create permanency for children in foster care through the dismissal of dependency and the appointment of a guardian. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) petitioned for an order appointing a guardian for A.W. and M.W. pursuant to the new statute, and the children's mother, T.P. DSHS filed a dependency petition on behalf of A.W. and M.W based on the former RCW 13.34.030(5)(c) (2003), which stated that the child "[h]as no parent, guardian, or custodian capable of adequately caring for the child, such that the child is in circumstances which constitute a danger of substantial damage to the child's psychological or physical development." In December 2009, T .P. agreed to the dependency. In March 2010, the court approved transitioning the children to T.P.'s home contingent on T.P.' s compliance with court ordered services and a DSHS safety plan that continued until the guardianship. In December 2010, the transition to T.P.'s home was terminated. The trial court found that based on T.P.'s substance abuse, poor judgment, incarcerations, chaotic lifestyle, failure to remedy parental deficiencies, and the length of time of this case, there was little likelihood that conditions could be remedied such that the children could be returned to T.P. in the near future. The trial court entered findings and conclusions and an order appointing guardians for A.W. and M.W. pursuant to the new statute. T.P. appealed, arguing that: (1) establishing a guardianship under the new statute using the preponderance of the evidence standard was unconstitutional because it violated due process; and (2) even if preponderance of the evidence was the correct standard, the trial court's factual findings were not supported by substantial evidence. After review, the Supreme Court found that the preponderance of the evidence standard satisfied due process, and that the trial court's record supported the trial court's decision to appoint guardians.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.