Today's arguments, Jan. 19, 2010
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in four cases today.
In the morning session:
Bellevue School District v. E.S., No. 83024-0 (briefs). Whether a child has the right to be represented by counsel at an initial truancy hearing. A student in the Bellevue School District, “E.S.,” missed 73 of the first 100 days of school, and the District filed a truancy petition. E.S., who was not represented by counsel at the truancy hearing, was found truant. E.S.’s lawyer moved to dismiss because E.S. had not been represented at the truancy hearing.
The school district argues that E.S. had no right to appointed counsel because she couldn’t actually be sanctioned at the initial truancy hearing. King County Superior Court ruled for the school district, but on appeal the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held that “[a] child’s interests in her liberty, privacy, and education are in jeopardy at an initial truancy hearing, and she is unable to protect these interests herself. Due process demands she be represented in the initial truancy hearing.”
Kelley v. Centennial Contractors, No. 82474-6 (briefs). Phillip and Monica Blackshear sued Centennial Contractors Enterprises for injuries caused when a steel beam was dropped on Phillip. After they won the suit, they filed a complaint for loss of consortium on behalf of their three children. The complaint stated that it would have been impractical to include their claims with their parents’ suit. George Kelly was appointed guardian ad litem for the children.
At trial, the children’s case was dismissed because the court said their claims should have been joined with their parents’ claims. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed, holding that since the children did not yet have a guardian ad litem it would have been impossible to join them to the suit, and that it would have been impractical for them to bring their claims until the results of their father’s surgery were known. (For financial reasons, the parents’ suit was brought while the results of the surgery were still unknown.)
In the afternoon session:
Freeman v. Freeman, No. 82283-2 (briefs). What must be proved for a trial court to terminate a permanent protection order? Robin Freeman got a permanent protection order against Rob Freeman due to domestic violence. Rob, a member of the military, has since moved away. He lost a hand in Iraq, and this made it necessary to retrain and change careers within the military. However, he needed a security clearance and could not get one because of the permanent protection order.
Rob moved to terminate the protection order. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Robin is currently in reasonable fear of Rob. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Rob had not been in Washington or had contact with Robin since 1998, that he had violated neither the protection order nor any law, and that “due to time and distance, there is no evidence to support a current fear” of physical harm.
Skinner v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of Medina, No. 82306-5 (briefs). Whether the time limit for appealing a Commission’s decision ran from the initial appeal or the motion for reconsideration. Roger Skinner appealed his dismissal from the City of Medina police force to the Medina Civil Service Commission (Commission). The Commission upheld his dismissal, and denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration. Skinner filed an appeal in King County Superior Court, and the trial court dismissed, saying Skinner had failed file his appeal of the initial order within 30 days as required by law. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed, holding that Roger Skinner had appealed within 30 days of the court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.
