Opinion Information Sheet

			

           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

In the Matter of the Dependency of          )       No.  66873-1-I
M.R., dob 06/01/07,                         )
                                            )       DIVISION ONE
                      A minor child,        )
                                            )
STATE OF WASHINGTON                         )       PUBLISHED OPINION
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND                    )
HEALTH SERVICES,                            )
                                            )
                      Respondent,           )
                                            )
              v.                            )
                                            )
CARISSA PAULOS,                      )
                                            )
                      Appellant.            )       FILED:  February 6, 2012

       Schindler, J.  --  After Carissa Paulos entered into an agreed order of 

dependency, the court entered an order placing her four-year-old daughter with the 

paternal grandparents.  At the first dependency review hearing, the court removed M.R. 

from the care of her paternal grandparents based solely on the court's unfounded 

concerns about their immigration status.  Because the decision to remove M.R. from 

the care of her paternal grandparents was based on untenable grounds and contrary to 

law, we reverse.

                                            FACTS

       M.R. was born on June 1, 2007.  Carissa Paulos is M.R.'s mother and Erik Rios-

Jimenez is the child's father.  In October 2010, Child Protective Services (CPS) learned  

No. 66873-1-I/2

that Paulos was using drugs, and had left M.R. with the paternal grandparents.  

       The paternal grandparents told the CPS investigator that Paulos was engaged in 

prostitution to support her drug habit, and had not taken care of M.R. for the past four 

to five months.  The grandmother showed the CPS investigator a text message from 

Paulos stating that "she could not take care of the child and the Paternal Grandmother 

could take the child."

       When the CPS investigator contacted Paulos, she admitted using 

methamphetamines and "reported she cannot care for the child at this time as she is 

homeless." Following an investigation and background check, the Department of 

Social and Health Services (Department) placed M.R. with the paternal grandparents.  

Dependency Petition

       On November 10, the Department filed an amended dependency petition.  The 

petition alleged M.R. was abused or neglected, as defined in chapter 26.44 RCW and 

had no parent capable of adequately caring for the child.  The Department requested 

entry of a dependency order "due to neglect and maltreatment."  The petition alleged, 

in pertinent part:

       The alleged father is not available to parent as he has been deported to 
       Mexico due to criminal activity.  The mother is not available to parent as 
       she is using methamphetamines, does not have safe stable housing, 
       admitted to the relatives and CPS investigator that she is not capable of 
       caring for the child at this time, has left the child with various relatives, is 
       prostituting herself and has possibly prostituted in front of the child.  The 
       Department and the child's maternal and paternal family believe this child 
       is at imminent risk of harm if left in the mother's care.  The Department is 
       recommending out of home placement at this time as there is no parent 
       capable of caring for the child.

       The court scheduled a preliminary hearing for November 23, and a fact-finding 

                                               2 

No. 66873-1-I/3

hearing on the dependency petition for December 23.  Prior to the preliminary hearing, 

the Department submitted an "Individual Service and Safety Plan" (ISSP) and the 

declaration of the Department social worker assigned to the case, Andy Duarte. 

       In the ISSP, the Department recommended that M.R. "remain in out of home 

placement and that dependency be established with a primary plan of return home and 

a secondary plan of adoption."  In his declaration, Duarte states that the "Department is 

making a referral to initiate the relative home study process and has found that the 

paternal relative placement meets the needs of the child and provides a loving and 

caring environment for her." Duarte also states that placing M.R. with the paternal 

grandparents will ensure "the needs of the child are being met."  

       Duarte's declaration describes the strong bond between M.R. and the paternal 

grandparents, and states that the mother wants "the child to stay with the paternal 

grandparents as she believes this is a caring and loving home."  The declaration states, 

in pertinent part:

       The home of the parental [sic] grandparents consists of the grandmother 
       and grandfather and their two sons, ages 12 and 17.  Due to the nature 
       and culture of the family, multiple aunts, uncles, and cousins visit the 
       home which gives the child opportunity to see multiple family members.  
       The child has also had opportunities to visit with her half brother that lives 
       in the area.  The siblings share the same father.  A health and safety visit 
       was conducted on 11/17/2010 at the home of the paternal grandparent's
       [sic] home.  There were no concerns about the safety and well being of 
       the child in the home.  The placement is ensuring that all of the needs of 
       the child are being met.  The bond between the child and the paternal 
       grandparents was observable.  According to the mother and the paternal 
       grandmother, the child has spent time living in the home off and on since 
       birth.  The placement has also demonstrated that they will follow the 
       Department's recommendations in reference to visitation for the mother.

       Duarte also described threats to contact the immigration authorities made by the 

                                               3 

No. 66873-1-I/4

mother's family if the Department placed the child with the paternal grandparents.

       Allegations were made against the paternal family side after the child was 
       taken in to CPS custody.  There were several indications that the 
       immigration authorities were going to be called on the paternal 
       grandparents if the child was placed with them.  While it was not clear to 
       this social worker who made the threats, this social worker, along with the 
       CPS social worker saw text messages sent to the paternal grandmother 
       indicating that on October 26 2010, at 0851am, " ... . my family called 
       immigration to come to court to and fingerprint you, they are crazy." On 
       11/18/2010, this social worker asked the mother about this text message 
       and she states that this was a threat made by her "aunt", and that she was 
       confused about the whole placement situation.  She went on to say that 
       her family continues to pressure her to choose that the child stay with the 
       maternal family.  She reported that she is told she will get free housing, 
       money and anything she asks for if she can get the courts or the 
       Department to change the placement. 

       In the declaration, Duarte also states that based on concerns regarding

immigration status of the paternal grandparents, the Department conducted an 

expedited background check and the Area Administrator conducted a review before 

approving placement of M.R. with the paternal grandparents. The declaration states, in 

pertinent part:

       On 10/21/2010, the child was placed with her paternal grandparents.  An 
       expedited NCIC [(National Crime Information Center)] background check
       was completed as well as a BCCU [(Background Check Central Unit)] 
       background check for the two adults in the home.  The results indicated 
       there were no disqualifications for placement for the child.  The paternal 
       grandmother indicated to the CPS social worker that she was not able to 
       be a long term placement option due to receiving a threat via text 
       mess[a]ge from a maternal relative.  The relative threatened to call 
       immigration if the paternal relative did not drop the child off at the 
       maternal relative's house. The CPS social worker did obtain approval 
       from the Area Administrator to place the child in the paternal 
       grandmother's home.  At that time, the mother also indicated that she 
       supported the placement of her child in the home of the paternal 
       grandparents.  Before the CPS intervention, the mother had voluntarily 
       placed her child with the paternal grandparents.

                                               4 

No. 66873-1-I/5

Agreed Order of Dependency

       Before the fact-finding hearing scheduled for December 23, Paulos entered into 

an agreed order of dependency. At the December 14 disposition hearing, the court 

found M.R. dependent, and entered an order stating that the child shall remain in 

relative placement with the paternal grandparents.  The order also gives Paulos liberal 

supervised visitation, and allows unsupervised visitation if approved by the Volunteer 

Guardian Ad Litem (VGAL) and the Department.  The court scheduled the first

dependency review hearing for February 17, 2011.  

Dependency Review Hearing

       Before the February 17 review hearing, the Department filed a second ISSP.  

The ISSP recommends returning M.R. to the mother as the primary permanency plan 

with an alternative plan of adoption by the paternal grandparents.  In the meantime, the 

Department asked the court to maintain the placement of M.R. with the paternal 

grandparents. VGAL Michele Wagner also recommended that the child remain with the 

paternal grandmother.   

       The ISSP describes M.R.'s strong bond with the paternal grandmother and 

ongoing concerns about "behaviors that indicate she has difficulty trusting adults, being 

abandoned by caregivers, and knowing the language to express her feelings."  In 

addition, the ISSP describes the child's distress when separated from the paternal 

grandmother, but also the marked improvement observed by the caretakers at daycare.

              [M.R.]'s day care reports that [M.R.] is doing so much better 
       socially with other students.  At the beginning she expressed her shyness 
       but after exposing her to smaller groups of peers, she is adapting so 

                                               5 

No. 66873-1-I/6

       much better.  [M.R.] is always happy to see her grandmother and there 
       are no concerns with the caregiver.  Initially she would cry when the 
       caregiver would drop her off but she would immediately stop crying when 
       the caregiver would leave.  She is learning letters, numbers, and colors 
       and there doesn't appear to be any cognitive or learning concerns or 
       issues.

       The mother opposed the Department's proposed permanency "plan of return 

home and adoption."  Paulos took the position that the permanency plan should not 

include the alternative of adoption.  The court entered an order continuing the 

dependency review hearing from February 17 to March 10.  

       On February 24, Paulos wrote a letter to the court.  Paulos said that she was

"willing to do whatever I have to do to get [M.R.] back," and asks the court to change 

the placement of M.R. from the paternal grandparents to her relatives.  

       Before the March 10 hearing, Duarte filed a declaration in "response to the 

court's request for information regarding the child's placement with a person alleged to 

be undocumented." Duarte explains that while the Department does not determine 

immigration status, the Department took the alleged undocumented status of the 

paternal grandparents into consideration in making the determination that placement

with the paternal grandparents was in the child's best interests.  

       Children's Administration (CA) has the responsibility to investigate 
       relatives for character, suitability, and competence in the care and 
       treatment of children prior to placement of a child with a relative. . . .
              . . . [M.R.] has remained in the care of her current caregivers, [A.J.]
       and [W.R.], since her mother left her at this residence in early October 
       2010 after taking her from the maternal grandparents' home.  The child 
       has now been in this home for 5 months.
              . . . [A.J.] and [W.R.] own their home and have been residing in the 
       same residence for 6 years.  They are both employed full time.  For the 
       last 3 years, [A.J.] has been the owner of a cleaning service, and prior to 
       that worked for 10 years for another cleaning company.  [W.R.] has been 
       employed as an asbestos extractor for 10 years.  They have two children 

                                               6 

No. 66873-1-I/7

       ages, 12 and 15.  Both children attend school regularly and there have 
       been no concerns about their attendance or behaviors.  There is no CPS 
       intake history.
              . . . .
              . . . The Department does have legal authority to approve an

                                               7 

No. 66873-1-I/8

       adoption home study of an undocumented individual and to consent to the 
       adoption of a child in [Department] custody by an undocumented 
       individual. The immigration status of a prospective adoptive parent (and 
       the potential consequences of the status) is a factor that should be 
       considered in approving a home or placing a child, but undocumented 
       status alone, is not a reason to disqualify a placement.  Additionally, it is 
       not a reason to refuse to license a foster parent or to refuse placement 
       with a relative.   

Duarte also reiterated that removing M.R. from placement with the paternal 

grandparents would be detrimental to the child because of her strong bond with the 

paternal grandparents, and because she had adjusted so well to day care.

       In a February 10 addendum to the VGAL report submitted by the VGAL program 

coordinator Jaime Peniche, the VGAL recommended that the child "remain in her 

current relative care Placement with the paternal grandmother."  The addendum also 

addressed "[p]lacement of [M.R.] with an undocumented relative."  The addendum 

states that the paternal grandmother has been in the country for 18 years and the 

paternal grandfather has been in the country for 17 years.  While deportation was a 

concern, the VGAL states that changing M.R.'s placement with the paternal 

grandparents would be detrimental to M.R.  "[M.R.] has experienced a great deal of 

instability in her life due to the comings and goings of her mother and father and the 

VGAL is concerned about the effect of yet another change in placement would have on 

this child."  The VGAL states that the paternal grandmother "is providing for [M.R.'s]

needs" and M.R. is "content and adjusted" at the grandparents' home.

       She has her own bedroom and appropriate toys and clothing.  They have 
       a pet squirrel, a dog, as well as chickens for eggs and food and [M.R.] 
       helps feed the animals.  [M.R.] attends daycare twice a week and is now 
       enrolled in a bilingual Head Start program.  [A.J.] has her husband, other 
       family members, friends, and her church for support and both [A.J.] and 
       her husband are employed.  [A.J.] wants [M.R.] to learn Spanish and 

                                               8 

No. 66873-1-I/9

       makes efforts to only speak with her in Spanish unless [M.R.] is not able 
       to understand what is being said.

       The attorney for the Department, the VGAL program coordinator, the attorney for 

the VGAL, and Paulos and her attorney were present at the March 10 dependency 

review hearing. The Department, the VGAL, and the mother agreed that it was in the 

child's best interest to remain with the paternal grandparents.    

       However, the attorney for the mother argued that because Paulos was 

successfully engaged in drug and alcohol treatment, the court should adopt a 

permanency plan of returning the child to the mother.  The Department argued that the

court should adopt a concurrent permanency plan of returning the child to the mother 

while at the same time pursuing adoption.  The court agreed with the Department.

       I agree with the Department on this.  It's good that she is now getting into 
       treatment.  I'm glad.  Her start has been a little late.
              Ma'am, your work is cut out for you.  It's time to get going on it.  
       And I appreciate that you are underway on part of it, and I will encourage 
       you to continue to do what you need to do.  In the meantime I'm approving 
       a concurrent plan. I think that takes into account that you are now 
       engaging in services to an extent, but the clock is ticking.

       The judge then questioned whether the mother still agreed with the 

recommendation that M.R. should remain with the paternal grandparents based on the 

letter the mother sent to the court.  

       All right.  Well, this must be my question today to you, because I 
       remember very well that she took a completely different position last time 
       and that was taken into account, I'm sure, by the Department.  She 
       wanted the child placed with the paternal family before and the child was.  
       I'm sure that was partly because she wanted it that way, and a parent's 
       input is considered.
              Now she's taken a different view.  Obviously, we have all seen in 
       her letter, she wants the child placed with the maternal family.  And 
       oftentimes when people change their minds very suddenly it means that 
       their view should be given a little less weight because it is -- I mean no 

                                               9 

No. 66873-1-I/10

       disrespect, ma'am, but oftentimes it means that they are just a little bit 
       flighty and therefore it is hard to assess how much weight to give their 
       viewpoint, because if it changed once, it might change again.

       The mother said that her family pressured her to write the letter.  The mother 

unequivocally told the court that she wanted M.R. to stay with the paternal 

grandparents.  

              MS. PA[U]LOS:     I really want my daughter where she is, with the 
       paternal grandparents.
              THE COURT:           Okay.  So this morning you are telling me you 
       want your daughter with the paternal family?
              MS. PA[U]LOS:        That's where I've always wanted her to be.
              THE COURT:           Okay.  Did you want that when you wrote this 
       letter?  I'm referring now to the letter that was filed on the 25th signed by 
       you apparently on the 17th, which said something different.  Why don't 
       you tell me about that letter.
              MS. PA[U]LOS:        The letter I sent?
              THE COURT:           On the 17th, the one you signed on the 17th.  
       I'm supposed to take into account your view, but your view seems to have 
       changed and that's why I'm asking you to explain it.
              MS. PA[U]LOS:        Yeah, because I was using and I felt pressured 
       by my family, so.  I really --
              THE COURT:           What pressure did you receive from your family?
              MS. PA[U]LOS:        What was that?
              THE COURT:           What pressure did you receive from your family?
              MS. PA[U]LOS:        Well, that my daughter should be placed on my 
       side and not the paternal side, they were against it.  

       After ascertaining that the mother wanted the child to remain with the paternal 

grandparents, the court addressed its concern about the undocumented status of the 

paternal grandparents.

       All right.  Now, last time we were here I learned, thanks to the guardian ad 
       litem, that everyone except myself seemed to already understand and 
       take for granted that the placement was -- was one of undocumented 
       status.  In other words, the paternal grandparents were undocumented 
       aliens.  This came as something of a surprise to me, because I 
       specifically remember a time when the Department was taking the view 
       that the maternal family had made threats of this sort, which I thought had 
       been characterized as spurious and unfair or something, and yet it was 

                                              10 

No. 66873-1-I/11

       not drawn to my attention that in fact there may well be some substance 
       to it.  And when I inquired as to whether or not the Department had indeed 
       placed the child with an illegal alien or two, I was told no, that I the Court 
       had.  And when I inquired as to when the Department was going to tell me 
       this, I was told that the Department had told me this.

       In response, the attorney for the Department pointed out that the declaration that 

Duarte submitted to the court in November 2010 addressed the immigration status of 

the paternal grandparents and the threats made by the mother's family.  The attorney

argued that while immigration status is a factor the court could consider in making the 

placement decision, a recent Washington State Supreme Court case emphasized that

"undocumented status is not a reliable indication of risk of deportation."

       The VGAL attorney also pointed out that the paternal grandparents had lived in 

the United States for 18 years, and the "child is stable in this home [and] is doing well.  

The child has been there for five or six months.  It's certainly a culturally appropriate 

home, from the standpoint that the child is learning to speak Spanish."  The attorney 

told the court  that the VGAL took the position that "it's not in the child's best interest" to 

change the placement.

       Despite the position of the Department, the VGAL, and the mother that it was in 

the best interest of the child to remain with the paternal grandparents, the court ordered 

M.R. removed from the placement with the paternal grandparents.  The decision to 

remove M.R. was based solely on the court's admittedly unsubstantiated concerns 

about immigration status.  The court's oral ruling states, in pertinent part:

              I have no doubt that she is in a good home.  I have no doubt that 
       her grandparents are taking care of her. I have no doubt that they are 
       doing all the right things. . . .
              . . . .
              . . . [I]t is my job to determine whether or not [M.R.] is in what I 

                                              11 

No. 66873-1-I/12

       would consider the best -- or maybe a stable or unstable situation for          
       her. . . .
              I appreciate that frequently people are in the United States illegally

                                              12 

No. 66873-1-I/13

       for a very long time and never draw the attention of the authorities, and 
       that that has historically been the case and I accept that from the 
       Department.  One also hears from time to time that . . . this administration 
       is deporting people much faster than the last one.  I don't know what to 
       make of that, and I am not going to make anything out of it.  I think the 
       only thing I can really say is it's uncertain and I don't think anybody can 
       say what's going to happen.  Maybe they will be here for the rest of their 
       lives and be happy productive members of society here, even though they 
       are not legal citizens, if that's the case, but I don't really know they are not 
       legal citizens, because that investigation has not really been done.  We 
       are all just assuming.  
              But on the other hand, I have no assurances that it's stable and 
       that is the big problem here.  Because if I leave that child here and then 
       we all turn out to be wrong and we just took a bad risk, then guess what, 
       [M.R.] is going to be torn from that home and it will be more traumatic then 
       in the future than it is now, and nobody seems to take the position that 
       that's not true. . . .
              . . . . 
              And I don't agree that it is worth the risk to leave [M.R.] in a home 
       that could simply evaporate overnight for all we know and we can all hope 
       that doesn't happen, but we have no assurances.  Nobody has done 
       anything to present any assurances today that that won't happen.

       The order entered by the court states that the permanency plan is to return M.R. 

to the mother or adoption.  The order removes M.R. from placement with the paternal 

grandparents and states that the child should be placed with relatives or in foster care.  

The order states, in pertinent part:

       The child is not in an appropriate placement that adequately meets all his 
       or her physical, emotional, cultural, and educational needs and the court 
       removes the child from the paternal relatives, but does so with a transition 
       period that allows the child time to transition out of the paternal relatives 
       care.

Discretionary Review

       Paulos filed a motion for discretionary review of the decision to remove M.R. 

from placement with the paternal grandparents.  Paulos argued that under RAP 

2.3(b)(2), the court committed probable error that altered the status quo.  We granted 

                                              13 

No. 66873-1-I/14

discretionary review and scheduled the case for expedited review and hearing.

                                          ANALYSIS

       Paulos contends the court abused its discretion by removing M.R. from the 

placement with her paternal grandparents based solely on unfounded assumptions

concerning their immigration status.  Paulos asserts that because the decision is based 

on untenable grounds, as well as contrary to law and the best interests of M.R., the 

court abused its discretion in ordering the child to be removed from the care of her 

paternal grandparents.  

       The decision of the juvenile court to change the placement of a child in a 

dependency proceeding is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  In re Dependency of A.C., 

74 Wn. App. 271, 275, 873 P.2d 535 (1994). A court abuses its discretion if the

decision is manifestly unreasonable, or based on untenable grounds or untenable 

reasons.  In re Dependency of T.L.G., 139 Wn. App. 1, 15, 156 P.3d 222 (2007). A 

decision is manifestly unreasonable if "it is outside the range of acceptable choices, 

given the facts and the applicable legal standard or if the facts do not meet the 

requirements of the correct standard."  T.L.G., 139 Wn. App. at 15-16.

       In determining placement of a child in a dependency proceeding, the court's 
paramount duty is to protect the best interests of the child. RCW 13.34.0201; In re 

       1 RCW 13.34.020 provides:
       The legislature declares that the family unit is a fundamental resource of American life 
       which should be nurtured. Toward the continuance of this principle, the legislature 
       declares that the family unit should remain intact unless a child's right to conditions of 
       basic nurture, health, or safety is jeopardized. When the rights of basic nurture, physical 
       and mental health, and safety of the child and the legal rights of the parents are in 
       conflict, the rights and safety of the child should prevail. In making reasonable efforts 
       under this chapter, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern. The 
       right of a child to basic nurturing includes the right to a safe, stable, and permanent 
       home and a speedy resolution of any proceeding under this chapter.
                                              14 

No. 66873-1-I/15

Dependency of J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d 1, 10, 863 P.2d 1344 (1993).  The best interest of the 

child is "a highly fact-specific inquiry that cannot be reduced to a mathematical 

equation."  J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d at 11; In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689, 695, 

611 P.2d 1245 (1980).  

       In J.B.S., our supreme court indentified a number of factors that the court should 

take into consideration and "carefully evaluate in making a placement decision."  

J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d at 11.  These factors include the nature of the child's attachment to 

siblings and the care giver; the psychological and emotional bond that exists between 

the dependent child and the parents, siblings, and care givers; and the potential harm 

the child may suffer "if effectively severed from contact with the persons."  The court 

must also evaluate the potential effect on the child of an abrupt and substantial change 

in the child's environment.  J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d at 11. In J.B.S., the court states that

although immigration status alone is not a dispositive factor in making a placement 

decision, the juvenile court "has discretion to consider this factor, insofar as it may 

affect the consequences of the placement decision."  J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d at 12.  See

also Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, 168 Wn.2d 664, 669, 230 P.3d 583 (2010) (immigration 

status alone is not a reliable indicator of whether someone will be deported -- "[b]ased 

solely on his immigration status, the risk of Salas' being deported is exceptionally low").

       A significant factor to consider is the need to maintain "continuity in the parent-

child relationship," regardless of whether the parent figure is the paternal parent.  

Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d at 695.  Accordingly, "multiple changes in custody as a result of 

judicial proceedings" are to be avoided if this is possible without harm to the child.  

                                              15 

No. 66873-1-I/16

Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d at 695.  The court must also take into consideration "the 

legislative preference for placements that least disrupt a child's attachments and sense 

of stability." J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d at 12.  

       Here, the uncontroverted record shows that M.R. had a strong psychological and 

emotional bond with her paternal grandmother, the paternal grandparents fostered 

M.R.'s relationship with her mother and half sibling, and M.R. was doing well in the

daycare program.  

       [M.R.] has a paternal half sibling.  The Department is required to consider 
       sibling connection when making placement decisions.  The paternal 
       grandparents have a relationship with the half-sibling's family.  The 
       paternal grandparents have stated a willingness to maintain the sibling 
       relationship and are in contact with the half-sibling's family.

The record also established that removing M.R. from the placement with her paternal 

grandparents would be detrimental to M.R.

       It would be detrimental to [M.R.]'s welfare for her to be moved to another 
       placement as [she] is participating in Head Start and also attends a child 
       care facility where she has made an excellent adjustment, has developed 
       friendships, and her social skills have reportedly improved.  The paternal 
       grandmother has a good relationship with these service providers and the 
       child care facility has reported to social worker [M.R.] appears very 
       bonded to her paternal grandmother and the paternal grandmother is very 
       consistent and involved. . . . 
              . . . On 03/02/2011, social worker contacted the child's day care 
       provider and she provided the following report:  The child is doing 
       extremely well in the day care and she has gone from being very quiet 
       and "shy" to now participating in her small groups and is a pleasure to be 
       in the day care.  She is thriving in the small milieu and doesn't get as 
       overwhelmed as she did initially.  The director reports she has seen 
       nothing but caring and loving interactions with the paternal grandmother 
       and reports that she knows that the child is well taken care of as the 
       paternal grandmother picks the child up midday, 4 times a week, to take 
       the [sic] her to HeadStart.  She lastly stated that removing the child from 
       the day care and the school she loves, not to mention the placement with 
       the paternal grandmother would be "traumatic." The Department 
       requested the child care provider provide a written report; however, this 

                                              16 

No. 66873-1-I/17

       report has not been received to date.  

We conclude that the decision to remove M.R. from the placement with her paternal 

grandparents was not only based on untenable grounds, it was also contrary to law. 

       The dependency statute recognizes the need "for stability and permanence in a 

dependant child's living arrangements."  In re Dependency of R.L., 123 Wn. App. 215, 

224, 98 P.3d 75 (2004).  Accordingly, any change in the placement of a child must be 

supported by proof of a change in circumstances.  RCW 13.34.150 provides:

       Any order made by the court in the case of a dependent child may be 
       changed, modified, or set aside, only upon a showing of a change in 
       circumstance or as provided in RCW 13.34.120.[2]  

       Here, there was no showing of a change of circumstances.  The record shows 

that the paternal grandparents took care of M.R. for several months before the 

Department conducted an investigation and placed the child with the paternal 

grandparents in October 2010.  Following entry of the dependency order in December 

2010, the court entered an order placing M.R. with her paternal grandmother.  At the 

first dependency review hearing on March 10, 2011, the Department, the VGAL, and 

the mother told the court that continuing placement of M.R. with the paternal 

grandparents was in the best interests of M.R., and provided documentation supporting 

the agreed recommendation.  

       Because the decision to remove M.R. from placement with the paternal 

       2 RCW 13.34.120 is inapplicable here.  RCW 13.34.120 addresses entry of a disposition order 
following the establishment of a dependency.
                                              17 

No. 66873-1-I/18

grandparents was based on untenable grounds and was contrary to law, we reverse the

decision to remove M.R. from the care of her paternal grandparents, and remand.

WE CONCUR:

                                              18