|
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
| Docket Number: |
42744-3 |
| Title of Case: |
Dependency Of M.h. |
| File Date: |
03/27/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
| Appeal from Grays Harbor County Superior Court |
| Docket No: | 10-7-00260-4 |
| Judgment or order under review |
| Date filed: | 10/19/2011 |
| Judge signing: | Honorable David L. Edwards, F. Mark McCauley |
JUDGES
------
| Authored by | Lisa Worswick |
| Concurring: | David H. Armstrong |
| Marywave Van Deren |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s) |
| | Peter B. Tiller |
| | The Tiller Law Firm |
| | Po Box 58 |
| | Centralia, WA, 98531-0058 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| | Lisa Marie Lydon |
| | Attorney at Law |
| | Wa St Atty Generals Offc |
| | 1116 W Riverside Ave |
| | Spokane, WA, 99201-1106 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In the Matter of the Dependency of: No. 42744-3-II
M.H.,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
A Minor Child.
Worswick, A.C.J. -- M.H., a dependent child, appeals from two orders on contempt
issued by the juvenile court. The Department of Social and Health Services (Department)
concedes that the juvenile court erred in entering those orders. A commissioner of our court
considered M.H.'s appeal under RAP 18.13A and referred it to a panel of judges. We accept the
Department's concessions, reverse the orders on contempt and remand to the juvenile court for
further proceedings.
On April 20, 2011, the juvenile court found M.H., born March 6, 1997, to be a dependent
child and ordered her to refrain from the use of alcohol or illegal substances. On September 14,
2011, the Department moved for an order of contempt, alleging that M.H. was using illegal
substances. On September 14, 2011, the juvenile court entered the following order on contempt.
UPON MOTION, it is
ORDERED that [M.] is in contempt for: 1) running from detention on 8-30-
11 and 2) using illegal substances while on the run. The 7 days suspended from
the July order are imposed. 7 days on each of [sic] contempt. Total of 21 days.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1.
On October 19, 2011, the Department moved for another order of contempt, alleging that
M.H. was using illegal substances and had fled while on furlough from detention. On October 19,
No. 42744-3-II
2011, the juvenile court entered the following order on contempt.
UPON MOTION, it is
ORDERED that [M.] is in contempt for: 1) using illegal substances and 2)
running from social worker on 9/29/11. Disposition: 7 days on last contempt and
14 days on these contempts. She shall have a chemical dependency evaluation and
purge conditions will be evaluated at that time.
CP at 2.
M.H. argues that the juvenile court erred in entering both orders on contempt. First, she
argues that the court imposed improper civil punitive contempt1 because the orders on contempt
did not give her "the immediate opportunityto purge" the contempt and did not comply with
criminal due process. In re Interest of J.L., 140 Wn. App. 438, 445, 166 P.3d 776 (2007); In re
Interest of M.B., 101 Wn. App. 425, 438-40, 3 P.3d 780 (2000); Br. of Appellant at 5. Second,
she argues the court erred in imposing 14 days of confinement under each order because RCW
13.34.165 limits a remedial sanction for contempt of a dependency order to seven days of
confinement. In re Interest of N.M., 102 Wn. App. 537, 545, 7 P.3d 878 (2000).
The Department concedes that without a purge condition, the orders on contempt
erroneously imposed punitive contempt without due process. It also concedes that RCW
13.34.165 limits the sanction imposed in an order of contempt to a total of seven days of
confinement and does not permit "stacking" of seven days of confinement for each act of
contempt.
1 The juvenile court does not appear to have used its inherent contempt authority, which would
have required it to make findings as to how its statutory contempt authority was inadequate. In
re the Dependency of A.K., 162 Wn.2d 632, 647, 174 P.3d 11 (2007). Nor did it provide M.H.
with the due process protections required for the imposition of punitive criminal contempt. RCW
7.21.040.
2
No. 42744-3-II
We accept the Department's concessions, reverse the orders on contempt and remand to
the juvenile court for further proceedings.
A majorityofthe panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it
is so ordered.
Worswick, A.C.J.
We concur:
Armstrong, J.
Van Deren, J.
3
|
