Order of Dependency (OROD, ORDYMT) - Page 1 of 10 WPF JU 03.0400 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.7; RCW 13.34.030, .046, .110, .120, .130, .132 Superior Court of Washington County of Juvenile Court Dependency of: D.O.B.: No : Order of Dependency (OROD) Agreed as to mother father other Contested as to mother father other Default as to mother father other Dismissed (ORDYMT) 4.1 Disposition Order (ORDD) Included Clerk222s Action Required. Paragraphs 4.1, 4. 3, 4.6 (E DL), 4.7, and the boxes below. The court will hear disposition 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 Petition: A petition was filed by DCYF Other alleging that the above-named child is dependent, and the court held a hearing on [Date(s)]. 1.2 Appearance: 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/CASA GAL/CASA's Lawyer DCYF Worker Agency222s Lawyer Tribal Representative Current Caregiver American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order of Dependency (OROD, ORDYMT) - Page 2 of 10 WPF JU 03.0400 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.7; RCW 13.34.030, .046, .110, .120, .130, .132 Interpreter for mother father Other other 1.3 Basis: The court heard testimony The parties submitted an agreed order. The child is 12 years old or older and the court made the inquiry required by RCW 13.34.100(7). II. Findings Except where otherwise indicated, the following facts have been established by a preponderance of evidence: 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. The petitioner has has not made a good faith effort to determine whether the child is an Indian child. Based upon the following, 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), and the Federal and Washington State Indian Child Welfare Acts do not apply to this proceeding: . Based upon the following, 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), and Federal and Washington State Indian Child Welfare Acts apply to this proceeding, unless and until it is determined on the record that the child does not meet the definition of an Indian child: . Based on the following summary, the petitioner used due diligence to identify and work with the tribes of which there is reason to know the child may be a member or eligible for membership, to verify whether the child is in fact a member (or the biological parent is a member and the child is eligible for membership). The facts establish by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, including the testimony of a qualified expert witness that continued custody of the child by the mother father Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. 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. American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order of Dependency (OROD, ORDYMT) - Page 3 of 10 WPF JU 03.0400 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.7; RCW 13.34.030, .046, .110, .120, .130, .132 The petitioner has has not provided notice of this proceeding as required by RCW 13.38.070 and 25 U.S.C. 247 1912(a) to all tribes to which the petitioner or court knows or has reason to know the child may be a member or eligible for membership if the biological parent is also a member. 2.2 Facts: Facts establishing dependency have not been proved. The following facts establishing dependency have been agreed upon proved: . 2.3 Statutory Basis: The child is dependent according to RCW 13.34.030(6), in that the child: (a) has been abandoned, as defined in RCW 13.34.030; (b) is abused or neglected, as defined in Chapter 26.44 RCW, by a person legally responsible for the care of the child; and/or (c) has no parent, guardian or custodian capable of adequately caring for the child, such that the child is in circumstances which constitute a danger of substantial damage to the child222s psychological or physical development. 2.4 Placement: If the court schedules a separate disposition hearing, the child should remain in the placement and care authority of DCYF pending further order of the court. The child should be placed or remain in the home of the mother father legal custodian guardian. It is currently contrary to the child222s welfare to return home. The child should be placed or remain in the custody, control and care of DCYF a relative an other suitable person for the following reasons: there is no parent or guardian available to care for the child; and/or the parent or guardian is unwilling to take custody of the child; and/or the court finds by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that a manifest danger exists that the child will suffer serious abuse or neglect if the child is not removed from the home, and an order under RCW 26.44.063 will not protect the child from danger. The child should be placed or remain in: Relative placement. Placement with a suitable person and this placement is in the child222s best interests. Adoptive parent or other person with whom the child222s siblings or half-siblings live. Licensed care: pending completion of DCYF investigation of relative placement options. American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order of Dependency (OROD, ORDYMT) - Page 4 of 10 WPF JU 03.0400 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.7; RCW 13.34.030, .046, .110, .120, .130, .132 because there is no relative or other suitable person who is willing, appropriate, and available to care for the child, with whom the child has a relationship and is comfortable. because there is reasonable cause to believe that relative placement would jeopardize the safety or welfare of the child; and/or hinder efforts to reunite the parent(s) and child. The child is an Indian child as defined in RCW 13.38.040, and this placement complies with the placement priorities in RCW 13.38.180, and 25 U.S.C. 247 1915. 2.5 Reasonable Efforts: DCYF made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from the child's home; but those efforts were unsuccessful because: The health, safety, and welfare of the child cannot be adequately protected in the home. Specific services have been offered or provided to the parent(s), guardian or legal custodian and have failed to prevent the need for out-of-home placement and make it possible for the child to return home. The following services have been offered or provided to the child and the child's parent(s), guardian or legal custodian: as listed in the social study; and/or . housing assistance, if applicable. The whereabouts of the mother father alleged father guardian or legal custodian are unknown. Additional Reasonable Efforts Findings: . Reasonable efforts are not required at this time to attempt to reunify the child with his/her parent(s), guardian or legal custodian because: The child has been abandoned. Aggravated circumstances exist and reasonable efforts are not in the child222s best interests, as determined by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. In determining whether aggravated circumstances exist by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, the court considered and found: that the following factor(s) listed in RCW 13.34.132, exist: . other:. The court ordered the child removed from the home pursuant to RCW 13.34.130(1)(b), and DCYF has recommended that a petition be filed seeking termination of the parent-child