This opinion was filed for record at on g FIITE IN CLERKS OFFICE RJPRraE CCUST. STATE OF WASHINSTOfl (3^^ H(2,.^ c-z_jDCLflUOI8 SUSAN L. CARLSON SUPREME COURT CLERK r a ctnEfjusy IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter ofthe Dependency ofE.H. a minor child. No. 94798-8 (consolidated with No. 94970-1) En Banc In the Matter ofthe Dependency of S.K.-P., a minor child. Filed OCX 0 4 2018 OWENS,J. — Dependency proceedings are not uniform, although each creates a tension between the State's ability to protect children as parens patriae and the fundamental familial rights ofthe people who are involved in the proceedings. In some instances, such as when the parents agree to the dependency or when the State does not assume legal or physical custody ofthe child, this tension will be lessened. In other instances, where the dependency is contested or when the State assumes custody of a child, the tension may be heightened. Accordingly, the amount of process due to children in dependency proceedings will vary with each case. The legislature gave children a discretionary right to counsel in dependency proceedings in RCW 13.34.100(7)(a). The petitioners argue that our constitution In re Dependency ofE.H and S.K.-P. No. 94798-8 (consolidated with No. 94970-1) requires that all children be appointed counsel at all stages ofthe dependency proceedings. For the following reasons, we find that RCW 13.34.100(7)(a) is adequate under article I, section 3 ofthe Washington Constitution. Further, we find that in this case the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to appoint counsel. Finally, in light of amendments to GR 15, we hold that confidential juvenile court records remain sealed and confidential on appeal, recognizing the abrogation ofIn re Dependency ofJ.B.S., 122 Wn.2d 131, 856 P.2d 694(1993). Accordingly, we grant the joint motion to seal. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE This matter involves two unrelated juveniles, E.H. and S.K.-P., in unrelated dependency proceedings. R.R., E.H.'s mother, and S.K.-P. both challenge the validity ofRCW 13.34.100's discretionary standard for appointment of counsel for children in dependency proceedings and seek instead a categorical right to counsel for all children in dependency proceedings. We consolidated these cases to address that issue. R.R., S.K.-P., and the Department of Social and Health Services (Department)jointly moved to seal the appellate records and to use the parents' and children's initials in publicly filed documents. R.R. additionally challenges the juvenile court's denial of her motion for counsel for E.H. In re Dependency ofE.H. In re Dependency ofE.H and S.K.-P. No. 94798-8 (consolidated with No. 94970-1) In 2013, E.H.'s mother, R.R., was sent to prison in California with a scheduled release date in July 2019. She arranged for a family friend to live in the family home and care for her six children while she was incarcerated. Six months after assuming responsibility for the children, the friend sent three ofthe children (not including E.H.)to live with another friend, who physically and emotionally abused the children in his care. R.R. was not aware ofthis ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals