On to Rose Adams AKA Beutler’s record & mental evaluations (Part 2)

This is where I say the sick mind of this woman becomes fascinating: She is an expert at working the system, I realize my mistake when she was up on the stand lying through her teeth, if I would’ve kept her on the stand she would’ve eventually blown her top but I was so flabberghasted at how BOLDLY she just sat there & lied that I was speechless. It should be noted that every time she has faced the same judge I faced (without witnesses of my own, or an expert witness, or being able to enter anything into evidence except for 3 of their own documents) Her charges were dropped!!

Below is a record of her criminal history, & her mental evaluations from 3 different mental health care workers in the proceedings where she lost her kids for abusing them. So you see Rose has been mentally deficient for a long time, don’t take it personally, she picks ONE person & goes after them like satan, although it seems she has graduated & is now multi tasking & going after several people at once.

This is the case where Rose lost custody of her children due to abuse

Adams, Rose Appellant Coa, Division I 506366 06-19-2002

Adams, Rose Appellant Coa, Division I 506374 06-19-2002

I still haven’t went & gotten copies of these so not sure what they are

Adams, Rose Plaintiff Thurston County Dist 27974 07-29-2008

Adams, Rose M Plaintiff King Co Superior Ct 97-2-16445-1 06-30-1997

These are the restraining orders that have been filed against Rose

Adams, Rose M Respondent Snohomish Superior 95-2-05009-1 07-05-1995

Adams, Rose Marie Respondent Sno Co-everett Div U04-00671 04-22-2004

Adams, Rose Mary Respondent Thurston County Dist 95-293HAR 08-23-1995

Adams, Rose marie Respondent King Co Superior Ct 94-3-00355-4 02-03-1994

Adams, Rose Marie Respondent Sno Co-everett Div U11-00015 01-21-2011

***This is the restraining order I had to file against her

Adams, Rose MarieRESPONDENT Thurston Superior 08-2-30502-1 07-29-2008

Adams, Rose Marie RESPONDENT Thurston Superior 07-2-30559-6 08-09-2007

Adams, Rose Respondent Sno Co-everett Div 97-311AH 08-26-1997

Adams, Rose Respondent Sno Co-everett Div 97-171AH 05-22-1997

These are the restraining orders Rose has filed against people

Adams, Rose Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 95-000843 07-05-1995

Adams, Rose Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 95-2-17127-3 07-07-1995

Adams, Rose Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 95-000841 07-05-1995

Adams, Rose Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 95-000842 07-05-1995

Adams, Rose A Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 95-000929 07-21-1995

Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-everett Div 97-207AH 06-16-1997

Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div A99-00063 03-31-1999

Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div D03-00170 10-24-2003

Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div A96-00261 10-16-1996

Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div A96-00260 10-16-1996

Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div A96-00258 10-16-1996

Adams, Rose MariePETITIONER Thurston Superior 08-2-30628-1 09-12-2008

Adams, Rose Marie PETITIONER Snohomish Superior 01-2-00338-9 03-12-2001

Adams, Rose MariePETITIONER Thurston Superior 08-2-30308-7 05-09-2008

Adams, Rose MariePETITIONER Snohomish Superior 10-2-00835-5 06-07-2010

Adams, Rose MariePETITIONER Thurston Superior 08-2-30590-0 08-29-2008

Adams, Rose Marie PETITIONER Snohomish Superior 01-2-00339-7 03-12-2001

Adams, Rose Marie PETITIONER Snohomish Superior 04-2-00445-2 04-20-2004

Adams, Rose MariePETITIONER Thurston Superior 08-2-30627-2 Available 09-12-2008

Adams, Rose Marie PETITIONER Snohomish Superior 01-2-00337-1 03-12-2001

Adams, Rose MariePETITIONER Thurston Superior 08-2-30307-9 05-09-2008

Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div U10-00012 01-19-2010

Adams, Rose Marie Petitioner Sno Co-south Div U10-00011 01-19-2010

Adams, Rose M Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 89-2-13774-7 07-17-1989

Adams, Rose M Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 95-000749 06-12-1995

Adams, Rose M Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 95-001200 09-13-1995

Adams, Rose M Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 90-2-02137-8 01-29-1990

Adams, Rose M Petitioner Pierce Co Superior 93-3-01866-4 04-19-1993

Adams, Rose M Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 90-2-13305-2 07-03-1990

Adams, Rose M Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 91-2-19788-1 09-10-1991

Adams, Rose M Petitioner King Co Superior Ct 95-2-18323-9 07-26-1995

Adams, Rose M Petitioner Kcdc-east Div (sho) 91-009057 09-06-1991

Adams, Rose M Petitioner Sno Co-south Div U09-00053 03-18-2009

Adams, Rose M Petitioner Sno Co-south Div U09-00054 03-19-2009

Adams, Rose M. Petitioner Sno Co-south Div A95-00268 09-28-1995

This is Rose’s criminal history including assault, forgery, harassment, & her numerous evictions (most of the Superior Court cases are evictions)

Adams, Rose DEFENDANT Snohomish Superior 07-2-07370-0 Available 09-07-2007

Adams, Rose Defendant Snohomish Superior 00-2-09388-6 12-06-2000

Adams, Rose Defendant Snohomish Superior 05-2-10520-6 Available 08-02-2005

Adams, Rose Defendant Snohomish Superior 98-2-09032-2 12-02-1998

Adams, RoseDefendant Snohomish Superior 09-2-11839-4 12-18-2009

Adams, RoseDefendant Thurston Superior 08-2-01621-5 Available 07-08-2008

Adams, Rose Defendant Snohomish Superior 01-2-01649-9 Available 01-08-2001

Adams, RoseDefendant Snohomish Superior 10-2-02911-5 Available 02-24-2010

Adams, Rose H/w DEFENDANT Snohomish Superior 07-2-07272-0 Available 09-04-2007

Adams, Rose M Defendant Seattle Municipal Ct 65919 06-06-1991

Adams, Rose M Defendant Seattle Municipal Ct 201656 06-22-1994

Adams, Rose M Defendant Pierce Co District 1ZT102126 12-01-2011

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Snohomish Superior 93-2-04928-3 08-31-1993

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00087109 07-25-2005

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div 165176 02-16-1993

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00039284 11-07-2000

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00011544 09-27-2004

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00011543 09-27-2004

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Kcdc-east Div (sho) J00009876 02-16-1990

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-everett Div PC04-2218 08-25-2004

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00087110 07-25-2005

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Kcdc-east Div (sho) J00046326 12-12-1989

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Kcdc-east Div (sho) J00041398 12-12-1989

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-south Div C00036999 12-29-1999

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Kirkland Municipal XY0073502 01-19-2010

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-evergreen Div XY0026677 02-01-2010

Adams, Rose Marie DEFENDANT Snohomish Superior 05-1-01959-4 07-29-2005

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Everett Municipal CR0081455 04-02-2008

Adams, Rose T And John Doe Defendant Sno Co-south Div C08-01858 06-27-2008

Adams, Rose T H/w Defendant Snohomish Superior 02-2-08098-5 Available 07-12-2002

Adams, RoseDefendant Snohomish Superior 11-2-03123-1 Available 02-15-2011

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Sno Co-everett Div 1095A10FE 05-07-2010

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Everett Municipal IN0128726 12-01-2010

Adams, Rose Marie Defendant Lynnwood Municipal I00168820 01-08-2009

This is possibly the most disturbing of all, to see her call her children liars, to hear her child say her greatest fear is that her mother is right & maybe something really was a bad child. Again if she will do this to her own children… She will do this to anyone. I did in fact lose my children because I had a lady with 6 kids staying with me, she posts an old newspaper story about it, but the paper fails to mention that my own children were at a babysitters at the time & she also fails to mention I moved the kids to my sister’s home where they would be loved & cared for & I kissed everyone’s hind end that asked to get the back, & I honestly can not blame the state for their actions, my ex-husband was calling CPS or having people do it for him up to 3 times a week, they had to do something. Rose on the other hand has also learned how to manipulate the child protection system, I watched her call on her son in law & out & out lie to them about him & his girlfriend & their children. There is NO joy in the suffering of a child who simply wants to be loved & protected by the person they should be able to trust, but it perfectly illustrates the mentality of this woman

Docket Number: 50636-6-I
In RE the Dependency Of: J.A.B. (dob 8/20/92) v.
RoseAdams and George Beutler, App. 
V. Dshs, Resp.
File Date: 03/03/2003

Court of Appeals Division I State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet Docket Number: 50636-6-I
Title of Case: In RE the Dependency Of: J.A.B. (dob 8/20/92)
v.
Rose Adams and George Beutler, App. V. Dshs, Resp.
File Date: 03/03/2003
SOURCE OF APPEAL Appeal from Superior Court of Snohomish County
Docket No: 017006963 Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 06/06/2002 Judge signing: Hon. Richard J. Thorpe
JUDGES
COUNSEL OF RECORD
Counsel for Appellant(s) Eric Broman
Nielsen Broman & Assoc. Pllc 810 3rd Ave Ste 320 Seattle, WA  98104
Oliver R. Davis Washington Appellate Project Cobb Bldg
1305 4th Ave Ste 802 Seattle, WA  98101
Counsel for Respondent(s) Scott D. Wessel-Estes
3501 Colby Ave Ste 200 Everett, WA  98201
Counsel for Guardian(s) Ad Litem
Alayne L. Spaulding 1604 Hewitt Ave Ste 401
2910 Colby Ave Everett, WA 98201
Counsel for Minor(s)
Jennifer L. Coombs 2828 Colby Ave Ste 402 Everett, WA 98201
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN RE THE DEPENDENCY OF: No. 50636-6-I
J.A.B., consol. with Cause Nos.
DOB: 08/20/92, 50637-4-I, 50739-7-I
C.A.,
DOB: 05/31/86, DIVISION ONE
Minor Children.
ROSE ADAMS and GEORGE BEUTLER,
Appellants,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES,
Respondent. FILED
Per Curiam. In this consolidated appeal, Rose Adams and George
Beutler challenge the order terminating their parental rights in their son, J.B. Adams also challenges the termination of her parental rights in C.A., J.B.’s half-sister. Because the State has satisfied its burden of proving the statutory elements set forth in RCW 13.34.180 and RCW 13.34.190, we affirm.

Facts
Adams and Beutler are the biological parents of J.B., who was born on
August 20, 1992. Adams is also the biological mother of C.A., who was born on May 31, 1986.
Both C.A. and J.B. were removed from the home following the filing of a dependency petition in February 2000. The dependency petition recited a lengthy history of referrals and concerns about neglect, anger management, domestic violence, parenting skills, and mental health issues. In particular, the petition alleged that Adams had physically and verbally assaulted both children and expressed concerns about Beutler’s ability to protect the children. 1 In June 2000, C.A. and J.B. were found dependent as to Adams; J.B. was found dependent as to Beutler. Under the terms of the agreed dependency order, Adams and Beutler acknowledged that there had been “extreme family conflict” in the home, including “inappropriate discipline” of the children. The parents also acknowledged that there had been indications of substance abuse, including the fact that Beutler had tested positive in February 2000 for amphetamine/methamphetamine and THC. The agreed disposition plan provided that both Adams and Beutler were to complete approved substance abuse evaluations and follow any recommendations for treatment. Both parents were also required to complete a psychological assessment with a parenting component and follow all treatment recommendations. An assessment of Adams found no indication of substance dependency or abuse; she completed a drug education class in September 2000. After an evaluation at Pacific Treatment Alternatives, Beutler was diagnosed with a cannabis dependency and directed to complete outpatient treatment. He tested positive for marijuana or THC in September 2000. Beutler submitted another UA specimen in October 2000 that was found to be “adulterated.” Dr. Jolynn-Marie Wagner, a licensed psychologist, completed the court-ordered psychological assessments of both parents in late 2000. The assessments were delayed for several months while Dr. Wagner waited for Adams and Beutler to return questionnaires. Dr. Wagner never received the questionnaires and issued her report in January 2001. As part of the evaluation, Dr. Wagner interviewed Adams and Beutler separately and together and observed Beutler interacting with J.B. and Adams interacting with J.B. and C.A. Dr. Wagner diagnosed Adams with antisocial personality disorder, finding her to be hostile and with little insight into the events involving her children. Adams also displayed features of narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. Adams generally blamed “the system” for her children’s behavior and emotional difficulties. According to Dr. Wagner, it is difficult to treat individuals with a similar profile because they tend to blame others. Dr. Wagner observed little evidence of bonding between Adams and C.A. or Adams and J.B. and concluded that an attempt at reunification with their mother was not in the children’s best interest Dr. Wagner diagnosed Beutler with dependent personality disorder, noting his difficulty in expressing disagreement with others, his excessive need for others to assume responsibility for most major areas in his life, and his difficulty in making everyday decisions without advice and reassurance. Dr. Wagner found Beutler’s dependency reflected in his commitment to the relationship with Adams, which was generally controlled by Adams and in which Beutler was demoralized and verbally abused. Dr. Wagner observed a relatively strong bond between Beutler and J.B. Based on Dr. Wagner’s evaluation, the court eventually ordered both Adams and Beutler to participate in psychotherapy and parenting training. Beutler, who completed a recommended drug treatment program in March 2001,was directed to participate in any recommended after-care. In November 2001, both Adams and Beutler were ordered to undergo a domestic violence assessment. Beutler was directed to provide a UA sample on November 15, 2001, but it appeared to be adulterated. Following a review hearing on November 21, 2001, Beutler was ordered to have “hands-on experiential parenting training” after he completed an approved parenting class and established and maintained a separate residence. Beutler was also ordered to attend regular NA or AA meetings and provide documentation to the court and parties. Beutler moved out of Adams’ house shortly after the hearing and obtained a separate residence. But he went to Adams’ house on December 16, 2001, in violation of a restraining order. After January 2002, Beutler had no further contact with Theresa Espana, his social worker. No visitation occurred between Adams and C.A. during the two-year dependency. Visitation would have been permitted at C.A.’s request, but she never expressed a desire to see her mother. Adams’ visitation with J.B. was suspended in February 2001, because she was not in compliance with services and was not making progress. Visitation was never restored. Beutler participated in visitation with J.B. for most of the dependency period, although the frequency was reduced After a fact-finding hearing in May 2002, the trial court terminated Adams’ parental rights in C.A. and J.B. Among other things, the trial court found that despite participating in extensive services for many years, Adams had made only minimal progress and that no amount of services could correct her parental deficiencies. The court also terminated Beutler’s parental rights in J.B, finding that he had failed to complete certain court-ordered services, failed to stay in contact with his social worker, and that he had been unable to sever his relationship with Adams. The court concluded that even though there was evidence of a bond between Beutler and J.B., termination was in J.B.’s best interest.
Decision Standard of Review

An order of permanent termination of the parent-child relationship may be entered when the statutory elements set forth in RCW 13.34.180(1) through (6)2 are established by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the court finds that termination is in the best interests of the child.3 Deference to the trial court is particularly important in review of termination decisions.4 An appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings “unless clear, cogent and convincing evidence does not exist in the record.”5 Rose Adams Adams first contends that the trial court erroneously considered the children’s hearsay allegations as substantive evidence of physical abuse. Prior to trial, Adams moved to exclude statements that C.A. and J.B. had made to various persons alleging that she had physically abused them. The allegations were then repeated in reports that witnesses prepared during the course of the dependency. At the termination hearing, Adams flatly denied ever abusing J.B. or C.A. Beutler denied that he ever saw Adams abusing the children, but acknowledged that he suspected physical abuse when he heard yelling and something that sounded like slapping. Several times during the hearing, the trial court ruled that the hearsay statements would not be considered as substantive evidence; rather “{w}hatever the child is reported to have said will not be accepted for the purpose – for the truth of the matter asserted, simply as information that was gathered by the witness for the purpose of reaching a conclusion.”6 The trial court reiterated its ruling during the presentation of findings: And I want the Court of Appeals to understand that I did not take any of that stuff as substantive fact.  I was sustaining – I was in a constant state of sustaining the hearsay.7 The trial court then entered the following findings of fact: 1.28 J.B. and C.A. consistently reported ongoing emotional and physical abuse by the biological mother to the evaluators in this case, the therapists, school personal {sic}, social worker, and guardian ad litem. Any hearsay statements were not proof of abuse but the fact that J.B. and C.A. made consistent repeated statements is evidence of abuse. 1.29 The totality of the trial evidence confirms, and this court finds that the children were physically abused by the mother. The trial court also found that Beutler’s testimony denying knowledge of abuse was not credible. Adams argues that by considering the hearsay statements cumulatively, the trial court effectively reversed the ruling that it would not consider the statements as substantive evidence of abuse. She maintains that without the hearsay evidence of physical abuse, the evidence of parental unfitness was insufficient to support the termination of her parental rights. The State does not assert that the trial court’s reasoning is supported by authority, but argues that the children’s statements were nonetheless admissible as statements for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment under ER 803(a)(4), an argument that the trial court rejected in conjunction with Dr. Wagner’s testimony. Because the trial court repeatedly ruled that the children’s statements would not be considered as substantive evidence of abuse, the parties never fully identified the relevant hearsay statements or addressed the specific circumstances surrounding the statements. The findings themselves do not identify the specific nature of the “physical abuse.” Under the circumstances, we decline the State’s invitation to review the record in order to find an alternative basis upon which to sustain the trial court’s finding of physical abuse. But even without the finding of physical abuse, the record supports the trial court’s termination of Adams’ parental rights. Adams does not challenge the trial court’s finding that she has been offered all necessary and reasonable services, and the record demonstrates that Adams has participated in numerous services, including parenting classes, anger management classes, domestic violence classes, counseling, and in-home therapy services.  But the State’s witnesses clearly established that Adams had made no significant progress in her ability to parent J.B. or C.A. Dr. Wagner, who diagnosed Adams with an antisocial personality disorder, noted that during the psychological evaluation, Adams frequently became angry and raised her voice, cursing and going off on tangential topics. Adams dominated the conversation whenever Beutler was present and frequently abused him verbally. Despite her acknowledgement at the time of the agreed dependency order that there had been extreme family conflict and inappropriate discipline, Adams blamed C.A., Beutler, and “the system” for the family’s difficulties, and characterized C.A. as manipulative and dishonest. The record was also undisputed that J.B. and C.A. suffer from severe emotional or behavioral problems. J.B. had gone through extensive counseling, with the recognition that he needed continued social and emotional development in a structured and safe environment. C.A. told Dr. Wagner that her greatest fear was that her mother was correct and that she was a bad child. No evidence indicated that Adams had any insight into the severity of the children’s problems, whatever their source, or that she could acquire any meaningful ability to respond to the children’s needs in the foreseeable future. Dr. Wagner also observed little evidence of a psychological bond in the interaction between Adams and J.B. and C.A. J.B. remained unresponsive to Adams’ attempts at affection, and Adams exhibited little eye contact, smiling, or verbal give and take in her interaction with both children. Adams did not respond to C.A.’s rudeness and the two maintained a wide distance between one another. Based on her evaluation, Adams’ inability to control her anger, lack of insight, poor prognosis for treatment, and failure to benefit from many years of services, C.A.’s strong desire to remain in her father’s home, and J.B.’s expressed fear of Adams, Dr. Wagner concluded that reunification with their mother was not in the children’s best interest. Other State witnesses reached similar conclusions. Ellis Amdur, a child mental health specialist, interviewed Adams in conjunction with an assessment of C.A.’s placement with her father. During the interview, Adams asserted that all of C.A.’s allegations were false and blamed C.A. for many of the things that had happened during the dependency. Adams denied any personal responsibility. Dr. Bramhall diagnosed Adams with a bipolar II disorder, “characterized by alternating cycles of hypomania and depression and recently mixed states.” During the interview, Adams insisted that prior CPS referrals had all been based on deliberate lies. Dr. Bramhall concluded that Adams’ inability to control her anger prevented her from forming significant attachments with her children and setting appropriate limits. Leila Copeland testified that she provided in-home parenting services for Adams for approximately 18 months. Copeland felt that Adams wanted to make changes in her behavior patterns, that she was resourceful in seeking out assistance in the community, and that there was improvement in Adams’ ability to control her anger as to the child that remained in her home. But Copeland also observed that Adams frequently reverted to old habits. Copeland characterized Adams’ overall progress with parenting, anger management, and communication skills as “minimal.” At the end of the intervention, Copeland concluded that Adams had “minimal” insight into the effect of her actions on others. Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s findings that all necessary and reasonably available services capable of correcting parental deficiencies have been offered or provided, that no amount of services will be capable of correcting Adams’ parental deficiencies, and that there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied within the foreseeable future. Continuation of the parent-child relationship clearly diminishes C.A.’s and J.B.’s prospects for integration into a stable and permanent home.8 Substantial evidence also established that termination of Adams’ parental rights is in the best interests of C.A. and J.B. Even without the finding of physical abuse, the State satisfied its burden under RCW 13.34.180 and RCW 13.34.190; substantial evidence supports the trial court’s termination order as to Adams.
George Beutler
Beutler contends that the State failed to prove that all necessary and reasonably available services were expressly and understandably offered.9 He argues that Theresa Espana, his social worker, failed to provide updated and meaningful referral lists and that certain services were either not available or not provided. Beutler acknowledged that he had a substance abuse problem and that treatment was instrumental to maintaining his parental rights. Although he completed a treatment program in March 2001, the record shows that Beutler delayed significantly in pursuing recommended self-help meetings. In November 2001, the court ordered him to attended AA or NA meetings and provide documentation to the court and parties. At the termination hearing in May 2002, Beutler testified that he had been attending NA meetings regularly, but acknowledged that he had never submitted any documentation and that he had stopped all contact with his social worker after January 2002. Dr. Wagner recommended that Beutler participate in domestic violence treatment and psychotherapy. In November 2001, the court specifically ordered Beutler to participate in domestic violence treatment. Beutler apparently contacted Catholic Community Services, an agency that he was familiar with, but maintained that he could not afford the $75 assessment fee. Noting the evidence to the contrary, the trial court rejected this explanation and found that Beutler could afford the assessment fee. The record supports the trial court’s finding. Beutler did not begin individual counseling until August 2001, and he ended these sessions in January 2002 when his medical coupons ran out. Beutler testified that he contacted the social worker once about additional funding, but he admitted that he never followed up. At the time of the termination hearing, Beutler was participating only in a monthly group parenting session. He testified that he did not believe that he had an anger management problem or needed to participate in domestic violence treatment. The record establishes that the primary issue was Beutler’s apparent unwillingness to participate in or follow through with the necessary services that were reasonably available. Beutler also rejected all contact with the social worker after January 2002 and failed to provide information releases or supply updated contact information. A parent’s unwillingness or inability to use the treatment and evaluation services provided excuses the State from offering extra services that might have been helpful.10 Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence established that all necessary and reasonably available services were expressly and understandably offered. Beutler next contends that the State failed to prove that there was little likelihood that conditions would be remedied so that J.B. could be returned in the future.11 He maintains that he had successfully participated in nearly all of the required services. But for the reasons set forth above, we disagree. Moreover, contrary to Beutler’s assertion, his separation from Adams does not suggest that he is now able to provide a safe environment for J.B.
Beutler conceded that his relationship with Adams was hostile, violent, abusive, and extremely harmful to J.B. and that separation was necessary to insure J.B.’s safety. Beutler did not establish a separate residence until the court ordered him to do so in November 2001. Less than one month later, he violated a court order by going to Adams’ residence. Several witnesses testified that Adams and Beutler were continuing to see one another shortly before the termination hearing. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that there is little likelihood Beutler’s deficiencies will be remedied so that J.B. can be returned in the near future. Continuation of Beutler’s parental relationship clearly diminished J.B.’s prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home.12 J.B. had moved to a pre-adoptive home several months before the termination hearing and had bonded with the new family. He has severe emotional problems that must be addressed in a secure and nurturing environment.Beutler’s inability to leave his destructive relationship with Adams makes it unlikely that he will be able to offer the stable environment that is necessary for J.B.’s well being in the foreseeable future. Under the circumstances, the State has established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that continuation of Beutler’s parental relationship diminishes J.B.’s prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home. Finally, Beutler contends that termination was not in J.B.’s best interests. This argument rests primarily on testimony by several witnesses that there was an obvious bond between Beutler and J.B. In addition, Beutler’s testimony reflected a great affection for his son. But the evidence also established that termination is necessary if J.B. is to obtain the stability and permanence that he requires. Where the needs of child and the rights of a parent conflict, the needs of the child must prevail.13 The record supports the trial court’s determination that termination was in J.B.’s best interests.
Affirmed. For the court: 1C.A. had been found dependent in 1991 and removed from the home until1994, when the dependency was dismissed. 2RCW 13.34.180(1) provides in part: (a) That the child has been found to be a dependent child; (b) That the court has entered a dispositional order pursuant to RCW 13.34.130; (c) That the child has been removed or will, at the time of the hearing, have been removed from the custody of the parent for a period of at least six months pursuant to a finding of dependency; (d) That the services ordered under RCW 13.34.136 have been expressly and understandably offered or provided and all necessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered or provided; (e) That there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be returned to the parent in the near future. A parent’s failure to substantially improve parental deficiencies within twelve months following entry of the dispositional order shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be returned to the parent in the near future. The presumption shall not arise unless the petitioner makes a showing that all necessary services reasonably capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been clearly offered or provided. . . . (f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child’s prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home.


wordpress visitor
Advertisements

One thought on “On to Rose Adams AKA Beutler’s record & mental evaluations (Part 2)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s