In re Sumey – Crisis Intervention
In re Sumey, 94 Wn.2d 757, 621 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1980).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This lawsuit involved a dispute over the residential placement of a minor without a prior finding of parental unfitness.
FACTS: Sheila is the fifteen year old daughter of Rolin and Laura. Sheila frequently disobeyed her parents and had run away from home. Suspecting that Sheila was about to run away from home again, Laura placed her in a receiving home. DSHS provided crisis intervention and Laura signed a consent form stating that Sheila should be placed in receiving care. The crisis was not resolved and DSHS decided that Sheila could not be returned home. Sheila then filed a petition for alternative residential placement. The court found that the family was in crisis and approved Sheila’s petition.
Rolin and Laura appealed that decision on the grounds that the statute authorizing residential placement of a child outside the parental home does not require a finding that the parents are unfit.
ISSUE: May a state authorize residential placement of a child outside the parental home without a finding that the parents are unfit?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. A state may authorize residential placement of a child outside the parental home without a finding that the parents are unfit.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The parent’s have a right to care, custody and companionship from their children. The state has a right as parens patriae to protect the mental and physical health of a child. This statute allows the state to protect its interest in the child by removing her from an environment in which neither parent nor child can live together without counseling.
This procedure does not result in the transfer of any legal rights and duties to the custodians of the child and such a placement cannot serve as a basis for a subsequent termination of parental rights. The court held that the due process challenge was without merit.
DISSENT: Under this ruling, DSHS can cause a child to be taken from the home from fit and proper parents whose only fault was to try to impose reasonable behavioral standards upon their minor child. This child was taken because she testified that there was a communications gap at home. These parents asked their child not to do drugs or associate with those who furnish drugs to others, not to drink alcohol, that she not be sexually active and that she return home at a reasonable hour. There is no doubt that this statute is violative of due process.