17 NICS App. 1, IN RE THE WELFARE OF L.J. (January 2019)
IN THE SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
SQUAXIN ISLAND INDIAN RESERVATION
SHELTON, WASHINGTON
In Re The Welfare of L.J.
L.J., Appellant,
v.
R.S. and C.S., Appellees.
NO. CW-2016-1606-0107 (January 2, 2019)
SYLLABUS*
Appellant claims trial court’s orders appointing and regarding guardianship of her daughter were made in error as the tribe’s ICW did not adhere to legally required procedures and that the trial court’s findings were based on outdated information. Court of Appeals affirmed trial court’s orders as appellant failed to indicate which ICW actions violated the code and Court of Appeals determined that trial court made its findings based on current and relevant information about appellant as evident by the record.
|
Before: |
Randy A. Doucet, Chief Judge; Lisa M. Vanderford-Anderson, Judge; Jordan E. Stephens, Judge. |
|
Appearances: |
L.J., pro se, Appellant; R.S. and C.S., pro se, Appellees; and David Babcock, for Squaxin Island Tribe. |
OPINION
Stephens, J.:
I. Factual Background
On June 29, 2016, the Squaxin Island Tribal Court issued an Emergency Custody Order for juvenile L.J. that ordered her to be taken into custody pursuant to Section 10.08.010 of the Tribe’s Youth in Need of Care Code. Prior to the issuance of that order, L.J. had been residing with her mother and her mother’s boyfriend. On June 29, 2016, when L.J. was six years of age,
17 NICS App. 1, IN RE THE WELFARE OF L.J. (January 2019) p. 2
L.J. reported to several staff of the Tribe that her mother’s live-in boyfriend had sexually abused her and that her mother encouraged her to not divulge the information.1
As a result of the Emergency Custody Order, L.J. was temporarily placed with her paternal grandparents – Robert and Carolyn Studer (the “Studers”). They had served as primary caregivers for multiple years when L.J. had previously been under jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to the Tribe’s Youth in Need of Care Code.
The Court issued a Dispositional Order on November 3, 2016, that found that L.J. was a Youth in Need of Care pursuant to SITC 10.08.010(A) because she had no parent, guardian, or custodian who could care for her. The Dispositional Order also found that it was not in the child’s best interests to remain in the care of her mother or father. The Dispositional Order placed L.J. in the custody of ICW until otherwise expressly ordered, and authorized her placement with the Studers. The Dispositional Order granted supervised visits to the mother and required her to follow a host of requirements related to contact with ICW and maintenance of a psychologically healthy and substance-free lifestyle. Numerous review hearings were held on the matter over the next several months.
On April 4, 2017, the Court entered an Order Appointing a Guardian ad Litem. The Guardian ad Litem filed a report on May 31, 2017. That report concluded that L.J. has “experienced intermittent neglect, an inconsistent mother and an absent father, an erratic and unpredictable visitation schedule and, more recently, tension between her various caregivers.” While the report went on to reference some actions by her mother that occurred several years prior, it also referenced recent and current actions that contributed to her conclusion. The Guardian ad Litem recommended that L.J. continue in the care of the Studers.
On June 22, 2017, Clara Hernandez, L.J.’s aunt, filed a Petition for Guardianship of L.J. On June 27, 2017, the Studers filed a Petition for Long-Term Guardianship of L.J.
The Tribe’s Indian Child Welfare Unit recommended that the Studers be awarded guardianship of L.J. L.J.’s mother made several requests to continue, between June of 2017 and March of 2018, when the Court ultimately made its determination on long-term guardianship. According to the Tribe’s Indian Child Welfare (ICW) unit, after the petitions for long-term guardianship were filed in June of 2017, L.J.’s mother continued to have sporadic check-ins with ICW, had several instances where she did not pick up L.J. for visitation as planned, sent L.J. to relatives to be cared for during her time with L.J., failed to perform urinary analysis as requested by ICW, failed to follow-through with her mental health recommendations, and let significant time go by until she followed-through with setting up family group conferencing as recommended by ICW.
Ultimately, the Court awarded guardianship of L.J. to the Studers on March 26, 2018. L.J.’s mother filed a Petition to Appeal Guardianship Decision on March 27, 2018. On April 20, 2018, she also filed a letter with the Court stating that: “ICW did not follow the proper steps by going before council when the wellness team could not come to a unanimous decision of the
17 NICS App. 1, IN RE THE WELFARE OF L.J. (January 2019) p. 3
guardianship of [L.J.] ICW was told to come back before the court if there was not a decision, which they failed to do so.” She also requested to have L.J. returned to her custody. After several rulings from this Court, an amended Notice of Appeal in compliance with Squaxin Island Tribal Code (SITC) 4.23.030 was filed on September 12, 2018. No briefing was submitted by any of the involved parties.
Oral argument was given on November 30, 2018, wherein L.J.’s mother, pro se, alleged she was being judged on her past actions and did not believe there was any reason that L.J. could not be with her. The Studers, pro se, asked this Court to affirm the Trial Court’s March 26, 2018 orders appointing them as guardians of L.J. The Tribe, via its counsel David Babcock, took no position other than to state that ICW followed the proper procedures throughout the case’s history.
II. Discussion
L.J.’s mother’s appeal of the Trial Court’s decision to appoint the Studers as long-term guardians appears to be based on two primary arguments: (1) that ICW did not follow legally-required procedures and (2) that the Trial Court made its findings based on outdated information about her suitability to have L.J. returned to her care.
Regarding the first argument – that ICW did not follow legally-required procedures – L.J.’s mother has provided no particulars on which ICW actions were violative of which laws. We find no basis for overturning the Trial Court’s order on this ground.
Regarding the latter argument – that the Trial Court made its findings and conclusions based on outdated information about L.J.’s mother’s suitability to have L.J. returned to her care – the record demonstrates this is not the case. “The Court shall hear testimony to determine whether guardianship is in the best interest of the youth. The Court shall consider all guardianship reports submitted for review.” SITC 10.12.020(I). In its “Order Appointing Guardians” and “Order Re: Guardianship”, both filed March 26, 2018, the Trial Court judge found that L.J. was doing very well, thriving in her placement, and engaged in regular visits and activities with her mother while in the care of the Studers. The Trial Court judge also found that it was not in L.J.’s best interest to be returned to the care of either of her parents at that time and that doing so would pose significant risks to her health, safety, and welfare. In particular, the Trial Court found: “This case has been under the supervision of this Court for approximately ten months without the necessary compliance and/or progress by either parent. The youth is in need of permanency.”
Further, in its Order Re: Guardianship, the Trial Court specifically found as follows:
It is not in this youth’s best interest to be returned to the care of either one of her parents at this time. This youth has experienced severe trauma and abuse in her young life while under the care, custody, and supervision of her mother. The mother failed to see the signs of abuse exhibited by the child and, for a period of time, did not acknowledge that her child had been victimized. The mother has only recently begun to engage sporadically in court-ordered mental health
17 NICS App. 1, IN RE THE WELFARE OF L.J. (January 2019) p. 4
counseling after being in non-compliance or partial compliance with court ordered services for most of the time this case has been in existence. In fact, this hearing was continued for several months to provide the mother with extra time to get into full compliance with all services ordered by the Court and she was unable to do so.
While this finding references past actions of L.J.’s mother, those actions are severe. Further, the Court referenced a plethora of current actions that impacted its decision to grant long-term guardianship to the Studers.
The above-referenced orders are supported by the various Review Hearing Orders and Guardianship Reports filed in the preceding ten months, which state that L.J.’s mother continued to have sporadic check-ins with the Tribe’s Indian Child Welfare (ICW) unit, had several instances where she did not pick up L.J. for visitation as planned, sent L.J. to relatives to be cared for during her time with L.J., failed to perform urinary analysis as requested by ICW, and let significant time go by until she followed-through with setting up family group conferencing as recommended by ICW. Thus, the Trial Court properly based its decision on current and relevant information in making its findings and conclusions in support of its Order Appointing Guardians and Order Re: Guardianship by clear and convincing evidence. SITC 10.12.020(J).
III. Conclusion
The Trial Court’s March 26, 2018 orders appointing Robert and Carolyn Studer long-term guardians of L.J. is AFFIRMED.
The syllabus is not a part of the Court’s Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.
L.J.’s father was in the custody of Washington State Department of Corrections at that time and throughout nearly the entirety of this case.