Order Of Disposition On Dependency Form. This is a Washington form and can be use in Juvenile Court Statewide.
Tags: Order Of Disposition On Dependency, JU 03.0410, Washington Statewide, Juvenile Court
Order of Disposition on Dependency (ORDD) - Page 1 of 8 WPF JU 03.0410 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.8; RCW 13.34.046, .110, .130, .132 Superior Court of Washington County of Juvenile Court Dependency of: D.O.B.: No : Order of Disposition on Dependency (ORDD) Agreed as to mother father other Contested as to mother father other Default as to mother father other Clerk222s Action Required. Para. 3.3 (EDL), 3.4, 3.9, 3.11, 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 Dependency: The court found the above-named child to be dependent on (date). 1.2 Hearing: The court held a disposition hearing on [date]. 1.3 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's Lawyer DCYF Worker DCYF222s Lawyer Tribal Representative Current Caregiver Interpreter for mother father Other American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order of Disposition on Dependency (ORDD) - Page 2 of 8 WPF JU 03.0410 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.8; RCW 13.34.046, .110, .130, .132 Other 1.4 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 and Conclusions 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 the 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. 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 Placement: The child should be placed or remain in the home of the mother father legal custodian guardian. American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order of Disposition on Dependency (ORDD) - Page 3 of 8 WPF JU 03.0410 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.8; RCW 13.34.046, .110, .130, .132 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; the parent or guardian is unwilling to take custody of the child; 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 such placement is in the child222s best interests. placement with an 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. 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. 2471915. 2.3 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. Other: . Reasonable efforts are not required at this time to attempt to reunify the child with his/her parent(s), guardian or legal custodian because: American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Order of Disposition on Dependency (ORDD) - Page 4 of 8 WPF JU 03.0410 (07/2018) - JuCR 3.8; RCW 13.34.046, .110, .130, .132 The child has been abandoned. The existence of aggravated circumstances makes it unlikely that services will effectuate the return of the child to the parent in the near future. In determining whether aggravated circumstances exist, 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 relationship between the child's mother father and the child. Because of abandonment of the child and/or the existence of aggravated circumstances as set forth above, filing of a termination petition is in the child's best interest and DCYF is not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. 2.4 Sibling contact: The court ordered the child removed from the home and it is is not in the child222s best interest to be placed with or to have contact or visits with these siblings (which could include step-siblings if there is a pre-existing relationship and the child is comfortable with the step-siblings): . and, a) the court has jurisdiction over the child(ren) listed above or the parents of the child(ren) for whom there is no jurisdiction are willing to agree; and b) there is no reasonable cause to believe that the health, safety, or welfare of any child would be jeopardized or that efforts to reunite the parent and child w