## Facts

- The Puyallup Tribe filed child-in-need-of-care petitions (dependency) for four Indian minors in September 2008.
- At the initial hearing, the Children’s Court found probable cause that the children lacked proper parental care, lacked adequate shelter, and faced risk of physical and psychological abuse.
- A November 2008 dispositional order removed the children from the home and imposed a Family Case Plan requiring the mother to remain clean and sober and to submit to urine analysis (UA) testing, among other conditions.
- During subsequent reviews, the mother missed three scheduled UA appointments.
- The Children’s Court later allowed an in-home placement with the mother while retaining court supervision.
- At a later review hearing, the Children’s Court found the mother “in compliance,” reasoning in part that there were no *positive* UA results, and it dismissed and closed the four dependency cases, ending the Tribe’s involvement.
- The Tribe appealed, arguing the compliance finding and dismissal were unsupported by the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the Children’s Court erred by finding the mother in compliance with the Family Case Plan’s sobriety and UA-testing requirements despite multiple missed UA tests.
2. Whether the Children’s Court abused its discretion by dismissing and closing the dependency cases based on findings contrary to the evidence.

## Decision

- The appellate court held that the Children’s Court’s findings supporting dismissal were contrary to the evidence presented at the review hearing.
- The appellate court vacated the orders dismissing and closing the four dependency cases.
- The appellate court remanded for further proceedings and for modification of the Family Case Plans consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Dependency and case-closure determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion, including whether supporting factual findings are supported by the evidentiary record.
- A children’s court errs when it treats the absence of *positive* UA tests as proof of sobriety while disregarding missed UA tests that bear directly on a verified-sobriety requirement.
- Dismissal of child-in-need-of-care proceedings is improper when key plan benchmarks tied to child safety remain unverified or unmet and the record contains significant contrary evidence.

## Conclusion

The appellate court vacated the dismissal of four dependency cases because the trial court’s compliance findings—centered on no positive UA results while ignoring missed tests—were against the weight of the evidence, and it remanded for continued proceedings and revised case plans.


In re Welfare of Four Indian Minors, 9 NICS App. 105 (Puyallup Tribal Child. Ct. App. 2010)