4 NICS App. 119, IN RE WELFARE OF C.W. (September 1996)
IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION
MARYSVILLE, WASHINGTON
In regard to the Welfare of C.W., d.o.b. 2/10/94, A Tulalip Indian Youth
NO. TUL-CiJ-2/96-472 (September 9, 1996)
SUMMARY
Finding that Appellants, who were neither foster parents nor pre-adoptive parents, have no standing in a dependency proceeding, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to intervene in the proceeding. We modify the return of placement of the youth and remand to the trial court.
FULL TEXT
Before: Elbridge Coochise, Chief Justice; Charles R. Hostnik, Justice; Christopher P. Williams, Justice.
Appearances: William and Teri Gobin, Appellants; Samuel Stiltner, Attorney for Appellants; Rose Buck, mother of C.W.; Paula Plumer, Attorney for Ms. Buck; Linda Jones, Tulalip ICW; Michael Taylor, Attorney for The Tulalip Tribes.
Williams, J.:
This matter, having come on for hearing before the Court of Appeals and the Court having considered the files and records herein and the Court being fully advised in the premises, now makes the following:
I. JURISDICTION
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Appellants because they are members of the Tulalip Tribe and reside on the Tulalip Indian Reservation. The act which is the subject of this appeal occurred within the exterior boundaries of the Tulalip Indian Reservation, giving rise to this Court’s territorial jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to § 1.2.1 of the Tulalip Tribal Youth Code.
II. FACTS
The facts were essentially undisputed at the trial court level and are relatively simple. The
4 NICS App. 119, IN RE WELFARE OF C.W. (September 1996) p. 120
Tulalip Tribal Indian Child Welfare (ICW) workers placed C.W. with William and Teri Gobin. It was the ICW representation that Gobins were in a "pre-adoption" status. The Gobins apparently did not undertake to participate in any qualification program to obtain the pre-adoption status. They were however under the mistaken impression that they would be able to adopt C.W.. They reasonably relied on the ICW's representations that they would become the adoptive parents.
The biological mother, Rose Buck, had never consented to adoption and was never notified of proposed adoption. There was no petition for adoption nor is there any subsequent pending petition for adoption.
The Tribal Court did determine that C.W. was a youth in need of care pursuant to Tribal Code § 81.8.01. C.W. was, by all appearances, integrated into the home of the Gobins.
Thereafter, the Gobins were informed by ICW that they had placed C.W. in their care by mistake and they were no longer "pre-adoptive" parents. The Gobins were asked to enter into a contract whereby they would join the proposed case plan and the case plan's attempt to reunite C.W. with Rose Buck. The Gobins objected.
Thereafter, the relationship between ICW and appellants disintegrated resulting in a unilateral decision by ICW to remove the child from the Gobin's residence.
III. ISSUE
The sole issue on appeal is, do the parties who have taken on the role, by mistake, of being pre-adoptive parents and who undertake the parental responsibility of an adoptive parent with the full knowledge of an ICW worker, to wit, the Tribe, have standing in a dependency proceeding?
IV. DISCUSSION
This Court recognizes a fundamental proposition that children placed in adoptive care become integrated into the family within a very short period of time. The severance of a parent-child relationship of the quality enjoyed by C.W. in the Gobin's household was a sad and tragic consequence.
There is an ancient axiom of law that two wrongs do not make a right. In the case at bar, the ICW worker made representation to the appellants which were wrong. The appellants were never the "pre-adoptive" parents, and there was never an adoption proceeding. There is no authority cited in any brief before the Court giving the so-called pre-adoptive parents any standing whatsoever. The Court is unaware of any authority giving mistaken pre-adoptive parents standing. The Gobins are not and do not qualify as foster parents. It is well established that foster parents do not have intervention privileges as a matter of right. In re Victor James, 87-J-0725 (Nov. 25, 1992) won in
4 NICS App. 119, IN RE WELFARE OF C.W. (September 1996) p. 121
the Court of Appeals. See, also, In re Dependency of J.H., 117 Wn.2d 240, 815 P.2d 1380 (1991).
Although the Gobins may have bonded with the child in a manner which is deeper and more committed than that of a foster parent, their status before the Court has no recognizable articulable protected right or interest.
Appellants' position is juxtaposed to that of the biological mother who has a "fundamental liberty and privacy interest in care and custody of [her] children". In re J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d 1, 863 P.2d 1344 (1993).
This Court recognizes that the intervention of the Appellants could have only one articulable position and that position is in direct opposition to the presumption before the Court.
The presumption in favor of reunification of the family is not a presumption that a pre-adoptive parent that has bonded to the child, even by mistake, could support.
The appellants' position for intervention, if granted, would only lend animosity to the proceeding, thus rendering the proceedings more adversarial, fostering an atmosphere of hostility and confrontation versus cooperation and compromise.
This Court then holds that, because of the unfortunate placement of child with the Gobins and its tragic consequence resulting in the heartbreaking severance of family ties, a competent and qualified Guardian ad Litem shall be appointed in this matter and that Guardian ad Litem, as an arm of the Court, shall investigate ICW, Rose Buck, the Gobins and any witnesses or Declarant the GAL deems appropriate and make an independent evaluation to the Court on behalf of the child. The Guardian ad Litem shall be allowed to make a recommendation of temporary placement with an appropriate caregiver regardless of whether that recommendation is with current, new, or former caregivers of the child, including but not limited to, the Gobins.
The cost of this investigation shall be borne solely by the Tribe and the trial court shall have full discretion at review of the Guardian ad Litem's report and recommendation as well as input from other parties and witnesses in this proceeding and shall proceed forward in this matter.
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions the Court hereby renders the following:
V. ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the May 17, 1996 trial court order denying Appellants’ Motion to Intervene is affirmed.
It is further ordered that the trial court order of May 24, 1996 finding that Appellants have
4 NICS App. 119, IN RE WELFARE OF C.W. (September 1996) p. 122
no standing in this matter is affirmed.
It is further ordered that the May 17, 1996 trial court order denying Appellant’s Motion for Return of Placement is modified and this matter is remanded to the trial court for appointment of a Guardian ad Litem and for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.