Articles Posted in Child Support, Parenting Plans

Courts sometimes make mistakes in parenting plans.  A court’s ability to modify a parenting plan is limited, but its ability to clarify an existing plan is broader.  Washington child custody attorneys know that whether an order changing a parenting plan is considered a modification or a clarification may be the determining factor in whether the change is valid, as seen in a recent case.

The case involved a father with a history of mental health issues, marijuana use, and erratic behavior.  This behavior included what the appeals court described as “obsessing” over his daughter being sexually abused.  The trial court included in the parenting plan a provision that allowed the mother to temporarily suspend the father’s visitation right in the event he began acting erratically, or if there was “objective evidence of decompensation or elevated paranoia.”  She could request that he seek a mental health evaluation.  The father’s residential time was to resume when the doctor approved him to have overnight time with the child.  The provision required the mother to file an affidavit/declaration within three business days of the incident.

The mother invoked this provision a week after the entry of the parenting plan.  The father underwent a psychological examination, but the mother did not believe it was sufficient and did not allow visitation to resume. Continue reading

Tax exemptions can be a contentious issue in custody cases.  Washington child custody attorneys know that the allocation of tax exemptions can have a significant financial impact on the parties.

A recent Washington appeals court decision addressed a case in which the mother claimed the tax exemption for her younger child in two years despite the court’s order allocating the exemption to her former husband in those years.  The order in effect at the time split the exemptions for the two children between the parents as long as the exemption existed for the older child.  When there was no longer an exemption for the older child, the exemption for the younger child would alternate.

Under the order, the father had the right to the exemption in 2012, but both parties claimed it.  Consequently, the father was audited and had to pay the IRS more than $2,000.  He moved to have the mother held in contempt and asked the court to require the mother to sign a dependency exemption waiver for 2012 and 2014.  The mother argued she claimed the exemption because the father had not paid his share of the child’s medical expenses.

Continue reading

New parents face difficult decisions regarding health care.  Sometimes, the best option for the family is for one parent to limit his or her work schedule to care for the child.  Washington child support attorneys know, however, that when a couple divorces, this issue can become contentious.  The court must decide how much income to impute to the spouse who is not working full-time.  A Washington appeals court faced this issue in a recent case, which was further complicated by the fact that one of the children has special needs.

The couple had three children under the age of five when they separated.  The wife works part-time and nets less than $2,200 per month.  Her husband nets more than twice as much.  The court found she would net around $3,500 if she worked full-time.

Working part-time allows the mother to care for the youngest child.  The child has a genetic disorder that causes a number of medical conditions, and the court noted his special needs will increase over time.

Child care is often a contentious issue in Washington family law cases.  A parent may object to the child care arrangements made by the other parent, not want a specific person to watch the child, or want the opportunity to take the child when the other parent is unavailable.  Sometimes, a parenting plan addresses this issue by including a right of first refusal.  The right of first refusal requires that the other parent be given the opportunity to care for the child when the parent with residential time is unavailable.  A right of first refusal is generally only used when the parents have been cooperative and shown an ability to co-parent.  As a recent case shows, the parenting plan should provide some parameters and details about how the right works.

The child in this case was born after a brief dating relationship between the mother and the father.  The mother received no assistance from the father during her pregnancy or the first 15 months of the child’s life.

When a temporary parenting plan was entered in 2009, the court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) noted that some of the father’s behavior was consistent with that shown by perpetrators of domestic violence.  The GAL noted there were no allegations of physical aggression toward the mother or child, but they expressed concern that the father’s behavior may have a negative effect on the child’s emotional well-being or even escalate to physical violence.

Continue reading

The modification of a Washington parenting plan over the other parent’s objection can be difficult.  In fact, there is a presumption against it.  Washington child custody attorneys know that Washington courts have recognized that children have a strong interest in finality in their living arrangements.  Courts will not disturb the residential arrangements in a parenting plan over a parent’s objection unless there has been a substantial change in circumstances, and the modification is in the child’s best interest.  The court must deny a motion to modify unless it finds adequate cause to hear the motion.

A recent case explored the issue of adequate cause.  The father petitioned to modify the parenting plan.  He and his former wife had two children together.  In the parenting plan, the mother was designated as the residential parent, and the father was given residential time with the kids on alternating weekends, winter breaks, mid-winter breaks, and spring breaks.  He was also given residential time during half of the holidays.

The parents cooperated on parenting after the divorce, spending holidays together.  The mother began a relationship with another man in 2012, and the father remarried.

Continue reading

Health care can be very expensive, especially if the treatment is not covered by insurance.  A child support order will generally set out how uninsured medical expenses are allocated, but what happens when one parent seeks treatment for a child who is not covered by insurance?  The Washington Supreme Court considered this issue in a recent case.

The child developed a kidney stone.  The condition grew worse while she was visiting her aunt, and she had a temporary stent installed at a hospital in the Cincinnati area.  She was also referred to a group in the area for lithotripsy, which would break open the stone by ultrasonic waves.

The child was covered by her father’s insurance, which was not available in the Cincinnati area where her aunt lived. The nearest facility covered by the insurer was in the Cleveland area.  The wife contacted the husband, who said the aunt should either drive the child to the in-network facility or wait to see if the insurer would approve an out-of-network provider.  The wife felt the daughter needed immediate treatment.  The aunt took the child to the physician group in Cincinnati, and they treated the stone with lithotripsy.  The medical expenses totaled about $13,000.  The insurer determined that the treatment was non-emergent and out-of-network and denied payment.

Continue reading