Revised Code of Washington
Chapter 13.34 - Juvenile Court Act—Dependency and Termination of Parent-Child Relationship.
13.34.138 - Review hearings—Findings—Duties of parties involved—In-home placement requirements—Housing assistance.

RCW 13.34.138
Review hearings—Findings—Duties of parties involved—In-home placement requirements—Housing assistance.

(1) The status of all children found to be dependent shall be reviewed by the court at least every six months from the beginning date of the placement episode or the date dependency is established, whichever is first. The purpose of the hearing shall be to review the progress of the parties and determine whether court supervision should continue.
(a) The initial review hearing shall be an in-court review and shall be set six months from the beginning date of the placement episode or no more than 90 days from the entry of the disposition order, whichever comes first. The requirements for the initial review hearing, including the in-court review requirement, shall be accomplished within existing resources.
(b) The initial review hearing may be a permanency planning hearing when necessary to meet the time frames set forth in RCW 13.34.145(1)(a) or 13.34.134.
(2)(a) A child shall not be returned home at the review hearing unless the court finds that a reason for removal as set forth in RCW 13.34.130 no longer exists. The parents, guardian, or legal custodian shall report to the court the efforts they have made to correct the conditions which led to removal. If a child is returned, casework supervision by the department shall continue for a period of six months, at which time there shall be a hearing on the need for continued intervention.
(b) Prior to the child returning home, the department must complete the following:
(i) Identify all adults residing in the home and conduct background checks on those persons;
(ii) Identify any persons who may act as a caregiver for the child in addition to the parent with whom the child is being placed and determine whether such persons are in need of any services in order to ensure the safety of the child, regardless of whether such persons are a party to the dependency. The department may recommend to the court and the court may order that placement of the child in the parent's home be contingent on or delayed based on the need for such persons to engage in or complete services to ensure the safety of the child prior to placement. If services are recommended for the caregiver, and the caregiver fails to engage in or follow through with the recommended services, the department must promptly notify the court; and
(iii) Notify the parent with whom the child is being placed that he or she has an ongoing duty to notify the department of all persons who reside in the home or who may act as a caregiver for the child both prior to the placement of the child in the home and subsequent to the placement of the child in the home as long as the court retains jurisdiction of the dependency proceeding or the department is providing or monitoring either remedial services to the parent or services to ensure the safety of the child to any caregivers.
Caregivers may be required to engage in services under this subsection solely for the purpose of ensuring the present and future safety of a child who is a ward of the court. This subsection does not grant party status to any individual not already a party to the dependency proceeding, create an entitlement to services or a duty on the part of the department to provide services, or create judicial authority to order the provision of services to any person other than for the express purposes of this section or RCW 13.34.025 or if the services are unavailable or unsuitable or the person is not eligible for such services.
(c) If the child is not returned home, the court shall establish in writing:
(i) Whether the department is making reasonable efforts to provide services to the family and eliminate the need for placement of the child. If additional services, including housing assistance, are needed to facilitate the return of the child to the child's parents, the court shall order that reasonable services be offered specifying such services;
(ii) Whether there has been compliance with the case plan by the child, the child's parents, and the agency supervising the placement;
(iii) Whether progress has been made toward correcting the problems that necessitated the child's placement in out-of-home care;
(iv) Whether the services set forth in the case plan and the responsibilities of the parties need to be clarified or modified due to the availability of additional information or changed circumstances;
(v) Whether there is a continuing need for placement;
(vi) Within 60 days of the placement of a child in a qualified residential treatment program as defined in this chapter, and at each review hearing thereafter if the child remains in such a program, the following:
(A) Whether ongoing assessment of the child's strengths and needs continues to support the determination that the child's needs cannot be met through placement in a foster family home;
(B) Whether the child's placement provides the most effective and appropriate level of care in the least restrictive environment;
(C) Whether the placement is consistent with the child's permanency plan;
(D) What specific treatment or service needs will be met in the placement, and how long the child is expected to need the treatment or services; and
(E) What efforts the department has made to prepare the child to return home or be placed with a fit and willing relative as defined in RCW 13.34.030, a Title 13 RCW legal guardian, an adoptive parent, or in a foster family home;
(vii) Whether a parent's experiencing homelessness or lack of suitable housing is a significant factor delaying permanency for the child by preventing the return of the child to the home of the child's parent and whether housing assistance should be provided by the department;
(viii) Whether the child is in an appropriate placement which adequately meets all physical, emotional, and educational needs;
(ix) Whether preference has been given to placement with the child's relatives if such placement is in the child's best interests;
(x) Whether both in-state and, where appropriate, out-of-state placements have been considered;
(xi) Whether the parents have visited the child and any reasons why visitation has not occurred or has been infrequent;
(xii) Whether terms of visitation need to be modified. If the court previously ordered that visitation between a parent and child must be supervised or monitored, there shall be a presumption that such supervision or monitoring will no longer be necessary after the review hearing. To overcome this presumption, a party must provide a report to the court including evidence establishing that removing visit supervision or monitoring would create a risk to the child's safety, and the court shall make a determination as to whether visit supervision or monitoring must continue;
(xiii) Whether the court-approved long-term permanent plan for the child remains the best plan for the child;
(xiv) Whether any additional court orders need to be made to move the case toward permanency; and
(xv) The projected date by which the child will be returned home or other permanent plan of care will be implemented.
(d) The court at the review hearing may order that a petition seeking termination of the parent and child relationship be filed.
(3)(a) In any case in which the court orders that a dependent child may be returned to or remain in the child's home, the in-home placement shall be contingent upon the following:
(i) The compliance of the parents with court orders related to the care and supervision of the child, including compliance with the department's case plan; and
(ii) The continued participation of the parents, if applicable, in available substance abuse or mental health treatment if substance abuse or mental illness was a contributing factor to the removal of the child.
(b) The following may be grounds for removal of the child from the home, subject to review by the court:
(i) Noncompliance by the parents with the department's case plan or court order;
(ii) The parent's inability, unwillingness, or failure to participate in available services or treatment for themselves or the child, including substance abuse treatment if a parent's substance abuse was a contributing factor to the abuse or neglect; or
(iii) The failure of the parents to successfully and substantially complete available services or treatment for themselves or the child, including substance abuse treatment if a parent's substance abuse was a contributing factor to the abuse or neglect.
(c) In a pending dependency case in which the court orders that a dependent child may be returned home and that child is later removed from the home, the court shall hold a review hearing within thirty days from the date of removal to determine whether the permanency plan should be changed, a termination petition should be filed, or other action is warranted. The best interests of the child shall be the court's primary consideration in the review hearing.
(4) The court's authority to order housing assistance under this chapter is: (a) Limited to cases in which a parent's experiencing homelessness or lack of suitable housing is a significant factor delaying permanency for the child and housing assistance would aid the parent in providing an appropriate home for the child; and (b) subject to the availability of funds appropriated for this specific purpose. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to create an entitlement to housing assistance nor to create judicial authority to order the provision of such assistance to any person or family if the assistance or funding are unavailable or the child or family are not eligible for such assistance.
(5) The court shall consider the child's relationship with siblings in accordance with RCW 13.34.130(7).
(6) The court shall advise the petitioner that the failure to provide court-ordered visitation may result in a finding that the petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan. The lack of sufficient contracted visitation providers will not excuse the failure to provide court-ordered visitation.

[ 2021 c 208 § 3; 2021 c 67 § 5; 2019 c 172 § 13; 2018 c 284 § 14. Prior: 2009 c 520 § 29; 2009 c 491 § 3; 2009 c 397 § 4; 2009 c 152 § 1; prior: 2007 c 413 § 8; 2007 c 410 § 1; 2005 c 512 § 3; 2003 c 227 § 5; 2001 c 332 § 5; 2000 c 122 § 19.]
NOTES:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2021 c 67 § 5 and by 2021 c 208 § 3, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).


Effective date—2019 c 172 §§ 3, 4, and 10-15: See note following RCW 13.34.420.


Severability—2007 c 413: See note following RCW 13.34.215.


Short title—2007 c 410: "This act may be known and cited as Sirita's law." [ 2007 c 410 § 9.]


Finding—Intent—Effective date—Short title—2005 c 512: See notes following RCW 26.44.100.


Intent—2003 c 227: See note following RCW 13.34.130.

Structure Revised Code of Washington