IN RE N.E.R., 138 Wn. App. 1010 (2007)

Nos. 54160-9-I; 54161-7-I; 55360-7-I; 55361-5-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
April 23, 2007.

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, Nos. 03-7-00226-5 and 03-7-00227-3, Philip G. Hubbard, Jr., J., entered March 23, 2004.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Cox, J., concurred in by Appelwick, C.J., and Ellington, J.

COX, J.

In February 2006, we filed our prior opinion in which we affirmed in part and reversed in part the order terminating the parental rights of both parents to two children. We also remanded the case to the trial court with instructions. The facts of this case are set forth in our earlier unpublished opinion.[1]

On remand, the trial court conducted a hearing to address the concerns we discussed in our prior opinion. Specifically, the court considered whether the State had complied with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), given Wilson’s and Robinson’s contentions that they may be Native American.

We ordered the trial court to determine whether the ICWA applies and if so, whether the State adhered to it, and to enter findings accordingly. We provided Wilson and Robinson 20 days from this Court’s receipt of the trial court’s additional findings to challenge those findings or move for reconsideration of our decision.

The trial court entered its Findings of Fact and Order Regarding Applicability of ICWA on December 4, 2006. Thereafter, this court received a copy of those findings. In substance, the trial court concluded that ICWA does not apply to these proceedings. It also found that the State provided proper notice to all relevant Indian tribes.

Robinson does not challenge these findings. He filed with this court his written consent to voluntarily withdraw review of this case.

Wilson has not filed a challenge to these findings. Although she initially expressed by letter a desire to challenge them, she has not filed anything further, as required in this court’s order of December 21, 2006.

The trial court has complied with our instructions on remand and entered unchallenged findings that the ICWA is inapplicable to this case and that the State complied with all notice requirements. Accordingly, it is now appropriate to affirm the order terminating parental rights in all respects.

While these proceedings were pending, the parties filed additional motions in this case. On August 11, 2006, Robinson filed a Motion to Reconsider, which Wilson joined. On February 8, 2007, Robinson filed a Motion, Declaration, and Ruling for Voluntary Withdrawal of Request for Further Review. In light of our final disposition of this case, these motions are now moot. We affirm the order terminating parental rights.

WE CONCUR:

Page 1011