the child’s natural father and voluntarily had given him custody of the child for an indefinite period of time with no notice that such relinquishment of custody would be temporary, defendant would have not only created the family unit that plaintiff and the child have established, but also induced them to allow that family unit to flourish in a relationship of love and duty with no expectations that it would be terminated. However, if defendant and plaintiff agreed that plaintiff would have custody of the child only for a temporary period of time and defendant sought custody at the end of that period, she would still enjoy a constitutionally protected status absent other conduct inconsistent with that status. See Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 53 L. Ed. 2d 14 (<HOLDING>). We wish to emphasize this point because we
holding that a state had no affirmative duty to a child placed voluntarily by his parents into foster care since he was in the custody of his foster parents who were not state actors rather than in the states custody holding that natural parents could not lose parental rights to foster parents where the foster agreement contemplates a surrender of custody for only a temporary period of time holding that foster parents have standing to intervene to seek termination of parental rights holding foster parents not liable for willful act of their foster child recognizing emotional bond between foster parents and child although ultimately determining foster parents did not have rights of parents in dependency action under chapter 2644 rcw