In re Sumey,
621 P.2d 108 (1980)



Facts: There had been ongoing conflict between Sheila Sumey (P) and her parents (Ds) because P did not follow the rules Ds had set. P had run away several times. Ds called the police to prevent her from running away. The police placed her in a receiving home. The Department of Social and Health Services began crisis intervention services to the family, which were unsuccessful. P's mother signed a consent form for P to remain in receiving care. P filed a petition for alternative residential placement. At the time of the hearing, P was 15 years old. After making findings required by the statute, the court granted the petition. Ds appeal this order, challenging its constitutionality.

Issue: May a state authorize residential placement of a child outside the parental home without a finding mat the parents are unfit?

Rule: A state may authorize residential placement of a child outside the parental home without a finding mat the parents are unfit.

Holding: No. Historically, the parents' constitutional right to the care, custody, and companionship of their children was absolute, barring a showing of unfitness. It is now well established that when parental decisions seriously con-flict with the physical and mental health of a child, the state has a pa-rens patriae right to intervene to protect the child. A statute would be unconstitutional if, unlike this statute, the interests of the state and child were not required to justify the degree of infringement upon the parents' constitutional rights.


Analysis:Owing to several runaway episodes and the family's struggle to control the daughter, the trial court approved the state's petition for alternative residential placement, ordered that the daughter be placed in a nonsecure licensed facility, and provided for the parents' rights of visitation. However, the parents contended that Wash. Rev. Code § 13.32 violated due process in that it authorized such placement outside the parental home without a finding that they were unfit as parents. The court denied the parents' contentions and affirmed the ruling of the trial court as to the daughter's placement based on its ruling that the interests of the state and the child supporting the § 13.32 procedure were sufficient to justify the degree of intrusion upon the parents' constitutional rights. That intrusion was slight, the court determined, because the parents retained custody over their daughter, the placement was designed to be temporary and to end as soon as the family conflict was resolved, the placement could not serve as the foundation for a subsequent termination of parental rights, and the § 13.32 procedure could only be invoked where there was established family conflict.