Volume 114 — Washington Reports, Second Series

<bold>[1] Divorce — Child Support — Standard Worksheet — Inclusion in</bold> <bold>Decree — Necessity.</bold> When determining the amount of child support to award, a trial court is required by RCW <cross_reference>26.19.020</cross_reference> to fill out, and to discuss in the decree the results of, a standard child support calculation worksheet as developed by the Washington State Child Support Schedule Commission. The parties' submission of standard worksheets does not satisfy the requirements of the statute. <bold>[2] Appeal — Review — Issues First Raised in Reply Brief — In</bold> <bold>General.</bold> An appellate court will not consider a contention raised for the first time in a reply brief. GUY, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case.

<bold>[1] Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Exhaustion of</bold> <bold>Administrative Remedies — Inadequate Remedy — Unclear</bold> <bold>Procedures — Effect.</bold> An absence of a clear ordinance describing an administrative appeal procedure does not excuse an aggrieved party from exhausting its administrative remedies absent an attempt to clarify the meaning of the ordinance. <bold>[2] Administrative Law — Administrative Review — Notice — Time</bold> <bold>and Place — Necessity.</bold> Absent contrary statutes or rules, an administrative body need not provide actual notice to interested parties of the time and location for filing an administrative appeal. <bold>[3] Environment — SEPA — Review — Notice Requirement — Scope.</bold> WAC <cross_reference>197-11-680</cross_reference>(5)(a), which requires notice of the date and location for commencing an appeal of an administrative decision under the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW <cross_reference>43.21C</cross_reference>), applies to judicial appeals but not to administrative appeals. <bold>[4] Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Exhaustion of</bold> <bold>Administrative Remedies — Futile Effort — Factors.</bold> In deciding whether to excuse a failure to pursue an available administrative remedy because of the futility of such a pursuit, a court will evaluate whether an administrative appeal would have promoted the following policies underlying the exhaustion requirement: preventing premature interruption of the administrative process; allowing the agency to develop the factual background on which to base a decision, to exercise its expertise, and to correct its own mistakes; providing a more efficient process; and ensuring that aggrieved parties are not encouraged to ignore administrative procedures by resorting to the courts. <bold>[5] Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Exhaustion of</bold> <bold>Administrative Remedies — Futile Effort — Burden of Proof.</bold> A party seeking to be excused from pursuing available administrative remedies based on the futility of such a pursuit has the burden of proving futility. The burden is difficult when the proof is based on the particular facts of the case rather than on the legal adequacy of the administrative remedy.<page_number>Page 21</page_number> <bold>[6] Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Exhaustion of</bold> <bold>Administrative Remedies — Futile Effort — Decision Based on</bold> <bold>Policy Choice.</bold> The fact that an administrative body's decision was based on a choice of policy does not, by itself, render a pursuit of available administrative remedies futile, thereby excusing an administrative appeal. <bold>[7] Environment — SEPA — Impact Statement — Supplemental</bold> <bold>Statement — Necessity — Change of Location.</bold> A minor change of location of a project does not require the preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement. <bold>[8] Environment — SEPA — Impact Statement — Supplemental</bold> <bold>Statement — Necessity — New Information.</bold> New information that does not significantly impact conclusions drawn concerning the environmental effect of a project does not require the preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement. <bold>[9] Environment — Waste Treatment — Legislative Priorities —</bold> <bold>Effect.</bold> The priorities established by the solid waste management act (RCW <cross_reference>70.95.010</cross_reference>) and the ash act (RCW <cross_reference>70.138.010</cross_reference>) do not give rise to a judicially enforceable mandatory duty on the part of local governments to conform their policies and programs to the statutory priorities. <bold>[10] Statutes — Construction — General and Specific Provisions —</bold> <bold>Time of Enactment — In General.</bold> The provisions of a specific more recent statute prevail over conflicting provisions of a general, older statute. <bold>[11] Judgment — Summary Judgment — Review — In General.</bold> In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom most favorably toward the nonmoving party. <bold>[12] Constitutional Law — Gift or Loan of Money or Credit —</bold> <bold>Recognized Governmental Function.</bold> The expenditure of public funds to carry out a recognized governmental function does not constitute a gift of public money in violation of Const. art. 8, § 7. <bold>[13] Environment — Waste Treatment — Gift of Public Money.</bold> The disposal of solid waste constitutes a recognized governmental function for purposes of the prohibition against local governments making a gift of public money (Const. art. 8, § 7).<page_number>Page 22</page_number> <bold>[14] Costs — Review — Discretion of Court.</bold> A trial court's cost award is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard; such an award will be reversed only if it is manifestly unreasonable. GUY, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case.

<bold>[1] Adoption — Termination of Parental Relationship — Parental</bold> <bold>Unfitness — Necessity.</bold> Under RCW <cross_reference>26.33.120</cross_reference>, a trial court in a stepparent adoption proceeding may terminate a biological parent's parental rights without the parent's consent only upon a finding of parental unfitness. Parental unfitness is established under the statute by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of failure to perform parental duties under circumstances showing a substantial lack of regard for parental obligations. <bold>[2] Adoption — Termination of Parental Relationship — Statutory</bold> <bold>Provisions — Validity.</bold> RCW <cross_reference>26.33.120</cross_reference>(1), which permits, in a stepparent adoption proceeding, the nonconsensual termination of a biological parent's parental rights, does not violate that parent's right to due process or equal protection. <bold>[3] Adoption — Termination of Parental Relationship — Parental</bold> <bold>Unfitness — Parental Obligations — What Constitutes.</bold> In determining whether a parent is unfit under RCW<page_number>Page 523</page_number> <cross_reference>26.33.120</cross_reference>(1) based on a failure to perform parental duties under circumstances showing a substantial lack of regard for parental obligations, parental obligations consist of expressing love and affection and personal concern over the health, education, and general well-being of the child; supplying necessary food, clothing, and medical care; providing an adequate domicile; and furnishing social and religious guidance. <bold>[4] Appeal — Findings of Fact — Review — Standard of Proof —</bold> <bold>Effect.</bold> An appellate court will not disturb a finding of fact that is supported by substantial evidence which satisfies the requisite standard of proof.