Legal Opinion

In re the Welfare of J.M.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 22, 2005No. 23594-7-IIIPublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1

Sweeney, J.

— A parent faced with the prospect of termination of parental rights to his or her child is entitled to a meaningful hearing, and that includes effective representation of counsel. The rights at stake are both fundamental and constitutional. Here, a mother’s lawyer stipulated to the admission of relevant but highly damaging written reports by nontestifying experts. The reports all came into court by way of witnesses who were not experts in the relevant fields and could not be cross-examined as to the substance of the reports. This was not effective representation. And we reverse…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. In Re Welfare of JMCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  2. Kelley v. KelleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
  3. Ramsey v. Department of Social & Health ServicesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  4. State v. HopkinsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  5. Department of Social & Health Services v. ParvinWashington Supreme Court · 2015

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API