First/Dep Review/Perm Pla. Hrg Or (FDPRHO, DPRHO, ORPP) - Page 1 of 14 WPF JU 03.0500 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.9; RCW 13.34.046, .130, .136, .138, .145 Superior Court of Washington County of Juvenile Court Dependency of: D.O.B.: No : Order after Hearing: First Dependency Review (FDPRHO) Dependency Review (DPRHO) Permanency Planning (ORPP) Clerk222s Action Required. Paragraphs 2.9 ( CPR NSP CRD IPM PCT NFA GCF), 3.13 (EDL/WDL), and the boxes below. The court will hear interim review dependency review permanency planning (type of hearing) on (date) at a.m./p.m. at: , Court, Room/Department: , located at: . Additional Clerk222s Action Required: Enter the code(s) that apply. About today222s hearing: Was adequate and timely notice given to the child222s caregiver? Yes (CGATN) No (CGNATN) Did the court receive a caregiver report? Yes (CGRR) / No The caregiver appeared. Did the court give the caregiver an opportunity to be heard? Yes / No I. Hearing 1.1 The court held a hearing on [date]. 1.2 The following persons appeared at the hearing: Child Child's Lawyer Mother Mother's Lawyer Father Father's Lawyer Guardian or Legal Custodian Guardian's or Legal Custodian's Lawyer Child's GAL GAL's Lawyer DCYF Worker DCYF222s Lawyer Tribal Representative Current Caregiver Interpreter for mother father Child222s Educational Liaison Other Other American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com First/Dep Review/Perm Pla. Hrg Or (FDPRHO, DPRHO, ORPP) - Page 2 of 14 WPF JU 03.0500 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.9; RCW 13.34.046, .130, .136, .138, .145 1.3 The order is agreed contested. The court heard testimony from: . The child is 12 years old or older and the court made the inquiry required by RCW 13.34.100(7). II. Findings General 2.1 Child222s Indian status: On this date On , the court asked each participant on the record whether the participant knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child. There is not a reason to know the child is an Indian child as defined in RCW 13.38.040 and 25 U.S.C. 247 1903(4), based upon prior findings and order(s). The federal and Washington State Indian Child Welfare Acts do not apply to these proceedings. There is reason to know the child is an Indian child as defined in RCW 13.38.040 and 25 U.S.C. 247 1903(4), based upon prior findings and order(s). The federal and Washington State Indian Child Welfare Acts apply to this proceeding. The notice and evidentiary requirements of the federal and Washington State Indian Child Welfare Acts were found in previous hearings and are incorporated here by reference. DCYF made active efforts by actively working with the parent, parents, or Indian Custodian to engage them in remedial services and rehabilitative programs to prevent the breakup of the Indian family beyond simply providing referrals to such services, but those efforts have been unsuccessful. Other: . 2.2 The child222s current caregiver was informed of this proceeding and his or her right to be heard by the court as required by Chapter 13.34 RCW. 2.3 Pursuant to RCW 13.34.030, the child was found to be dependent as to the mother father guardian/legal custodian and a disposition order was entered. 2.4 In the previous review period, the permanency plan in effect for the child has been: Primary: Alternative: Return of the child to the home of the mother father guardian or legal custodian; Adoption; Final non-parental custody order pursuant to Chapter 26.10 RCW or the equivalent laws of another state or a federally recognized Indian tribe; Title 13 Guardianship Long term relative or foster care, for children between 16 and 18 years of age, with a written agreement; Responsible living skills program; and/or Independent living for children 16 and older. 2.5 The placement and permanent plan: are still necessary and appropriate for the safety and wellbeing of the child. are no longer necessary and appropriate and the placement shall be modified as stated in Paragraph 3.3. American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com First/Dep Review/Perm Pla. Hrg Or (FDPRHO, DPRHO, ORPP) - Page 3 of 14 WPF JU 03.0500 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.9; RCW 13.34.046, .130, .136, .138, .145 are no longer necessary and appropriate and the permanent plan shall be modified as stated in Paragraph 3.19. have been accomplished because the court entered a parenting plan, residential schedule, or nonparental custody decree, which is in the child222s best interests, and which implements the permanent plan of care. long-term foster or relative care has been achieved. 2.6 is the projected date for: return of the child to his or her home. placement for adoption. establishment of a guardianship. implementation of the following alternate plan of care: . 2.7 The child is 16 years old or older and the court has approved a permanency plan other than Return Home, Adoption, Title 13 Guardianship, or final non-parental custody order pursuant to chapter 26.10 RCW for the following compelling reasons: . 2.8 The child is 14 years old or older and the court makes the following findings: The child was present for today222s hearing. The court consulted with the child in an age-appropriate manner regarding ongoing opportunities to engage in age or developmentally appropriate activities. The child was not present for today222s hearing. The child does does not have regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in age or developmentally appropriate activities. DCYF has taken the following steps to ensure the child222s placement is following the reasonable and prudent parent standard as defined in 42 U.S.C. 247675(10)(A): . 2.9 DCYF has has not made reasonable efforts to implement and finalize the permanent plan for the child. 2.10 The child has been in out-of-home care for 15 of the last 22 months since the date the dependency petition was filed and: termination petition has already been filed. DCYF should file a termination petition pursuant to RCW 13.34.136(3). A termination petition should be filed pursuant to RCW 13.34.138(2)(d). Good cause not to require the filing of a termination petition exists because of the following: (CPR) The child has been placed in the care of a relative. (NSP) DCYF has not provided the child222s family with the services that are necessary for the child222s safe return home. American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com First/Dep Review/Perm Pla. Hrg Or (FDPRHO, DPRHO, ORPP) - Page 4 of 14 WPF JU 03.0500 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.9; RCW 13.34.046, .130, .136, .138, .145 (CRD) DCYF has documented a compelling reason as the basis for its determination that filing a termination petition would not be in the best interests of the child. (IPM) The parent is incarcerated, or the parent222s prior incarceration is a significant factor in why the child has been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months, DCYF has not documented another reason why it would be otherwise appropriate to file a petition, and the parent maintains a meaningful role in the child222s life, because: . (PCT) The parent has been accepted into a dependency treatment court program or long-term substance abuse or dual diagnoses treatment program and is demonstrating compliance with treatment goals. (NFA) The parent was court-ordered to complete services necessary for the child222s safe return home. The parent filed a declaration under penalty of perjury that the parent is financially unable to pay for those court-ordered services and that DCYF was unwilling or unable to pay for those services necessary for the child222s safe return home. (GCF) Other: . Reports 2.11 The DCYF report was was not timely submitted. 2.12 The child222s guardian ad litem attorney has has not made a report to the court. The guardian ad litem has met with or personally observed the child in the past review period. The guardian ad litem has not met with or personally observed the child in the past review period because: . 2.13 The child222s educational liaison, (name) has has not made a report to the court. The current educational liaison should continue. It is no longer appropriate for the current educational liaison to continue because: . DCYF recommends that the court appoint (name) to serve as the child222s educational liaison. 2.14 The following oth