Divorce

Limitations in Washington Parenting Plan upon Finding of History of Domestic Violence

October 8, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When a court makes a finding there was a history of domestic violence in a Washington custody case, it must impose limitations on the decision-making authority and in most cases the residential time of the parent who committed the domestic violence. A mother recently challenged a parenting plan based on a lack of limitations on the father in light of the court’s finding of a history of domestic violence.

The parties got married in 2019 and had a son about a year later. The mother alleged the father was abusive toward her during the relationship. According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the father told the mother to “. . .get out” following an argument in June 2021. The mother then moved with the child to live with her parents in New Mexico. The father filed for divorce.

The court entered temporary orders allowing the father to have two monthly visits with the child, 25% of which were to occur in Washington. He only actually had about a visit every other month due to the expense and work conflicts.

Washington Supreme Court Holds Financial Need Not a Prerequisite to Spousal Maintenance Award

August 13, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington spousal maintenance is intended to equalize the parties’ standard of living for an appropriate period. Pursuant to RCW 26.09.090, a court may order spousal maintenance in an amount and for the period it deems just after it has considered all relevant factors, including: the financial resources of the requesting spouse and their ability to meet their needs independently; the time they need to acquire sufficient education or training to obtain appropriate employment; the standard of living established while the parties were married; the marriage’s duration; the age, condition, and financial obligation of the spouse seeking maintenance; and the ability of the other spouse to meet their own needs and financial obligations while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance. A court abuses its discretion if it awards maintenance that is not based on a fair consideration of these factors.

Divorce Case

A former husband recently challenged a spousal maintenance award in the Supreme Court of Washington. The parties had been married for more than 20 years when they separated in 2015. The husband had a bachelor’s degree. The wife had graduated high school and attended a year of college, but had not earned a degree. They bought a home during the marriage and it was paid off before the divorce was finalized. According to the Washington Supreme Court, they had “a secure, middle-class lifestyle” during the marriage.

After the wife lost her job during her second pregnancy in 1997, the parties agreed she would not go back to work and would be a stay-at-home parent. She went back to work part-time in 2004 and worked only part time until 2007. Her highest net annual income during that period was $10,485 in 2007. She worked as a receptionist at a dental office from 2009 until she was terminated in 2017, earning an average of $30,000 for much of that time. In October 2020, she was working in a call center. According to her October 2021 financial declaration, she made $2840 each month with expenses totaling $2,719.

Washington Appeals Court Reverses Denial of DVPO

July 9, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A wife recently appealed a trial court’s decision not to grant a domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) in a divorce proceeding. She argued that RCW 7.105.225(1)(a) required the court to issue the DVPO after a finding of domestic violence and that the court incorrectly interpreted the statute to require it to perform a risk analysis after it found domestic violence had occurred. She also argued the court erred in denying the DVPO for reasons that were expressly prohibited in the statute.

RCW 7.105.225(1) states “the court shall issue a protection order” if the petitioner proves the statutory requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. To obtain a DVPO, the petitioner must prove they were “subjected to domestic violence by the respondent.” The statute further sets forth grounds for which the court may not deny or dismiss the petition for a protection order, including: either party being a minor, unless relief or remedies are specifically limited elsewhere in Chapter 7.105 based on a party’s age; the petitioner’s failure to report the conduct to law enforcement; a no-contact order or restraining order having been issued in a criminal or domestic relations proceeding; the petitioner’s ability to obtain relief in another action or proceeding; pending criminal charges against the respondent; the time since the last incident; or the respondent not living near the petitioner. RCW 7.105.225(2).

In this case, the court found the wife had been subjected to domestic violence by the husband. The court concluded the statute suggested the court is then to conduct a risk analysis to determine whether to grant the DVPO. The trial court then concluded that the statute allowed it to deny the DVPO because of the combined reasons of the passage of time since the incident occurred and the husband no longer living near the wife.

Washington Court Did Not Have Authority to Review Parenting Plan Arbitration Decision

June 20, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Arbitration and alternative dispute resolution can save parties to a Washington divorce some of the expense and stress of litigation. The ability to challenge a decision resulting from a voluntary arbitration may be limited, however. In a recent case, a father sought court review of an arbitration decision relating to certain parenting plan disputes.

The parties got married in 2014 and had two children together before separating in early 2022. They filed a joint separation petition, but the mother subsequently withdrew. The father amended the petition to seek dissolution.

The parties later signed a CR 2A Stipulation and Agreement that stated they agreed the agreement was “fair, just and equitable” and were signing “freely, knowingly and voluntarily. . .” The agreement indicated it was the parties’ “full and final settlement on the issues in this divorce, including most of the provisions for the final parenting plan, the provisions for the child support order, and property division. It also stated the parties would negotiate the open items of the parenting plan, and if they could not reach an agreement, they would mediate the remaining items with the first available of three listed mediators. If they failed to reach a mediated settlement, they agreed to binding arbitration.

Former Husband Cannot Be Required to Name Ex-Wife Sole Beneficiary of Retirement Accounts in Washington Divorce

May 24, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A trial court in a Washington divorce case has broad discretion to justly and equitably distribute the property. The court must analysis the relevant factors as set forth in RCW 26.09.080. The court may distribute both community and separate property and does not need to find exceptional circumstance to support awarding part of one spouse’s separate property to the other. Additionally, it may be fair and equitable for the court to award one spouse’s separate property to the other spouse who has less earning capacity. A former husband recently challenged a division that awarded the former wife a share of his retirement and pension, including his premarital retirement assets.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties were married for about ten years when they separated in 2019. In March 2021, the wife petitioned for legal separation, and that petition subsequently became a petition for dissolution. The trial focused on the property distribution. Although there was a prenuptial agreement, the trial court found it was unenforceable.

The wife had worked as a flight attendant and later became a stay-at-home mother after the children were born. She worked as an Amazon courier when the trial occurred. She had about $85,000 in her retirement account.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Equalizing Judgment in Divorce Case

January 30, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A trial court in a Washington divorce has broad discretion to make a just and equitable property division. RCW 26.09.080 sets forth certain factors that the court must consider in making a just and equitable property distribution, but those factors are not exclusive. The trial court must consider the nature and extent of both the community property and any separate property, the length of the marriage, and each spouse’s economic circumstances when the division takes effect. The court must fairly consider the circumstances and future needs of both parties. An appeals court generally affirms a property distribution unless there was a manifest abuse of discretion. A manifest abuse of discretion occurs if there is a patent disparity in the economic circumstances of the parties as a result of the decree. A former husband recently challenged a property division in which his former wife was awarded a $12,000 judgment.

The parties got married in April 2018 and separated in October 2020. According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, they did not have many assets or debts. They bought a home during the marriage. The wife transferred her interest in the home to the husband in 2019 via a quitclaim deed, though her reasons for doing so were in dispute.

The husband asked that the court award each party the bank and retirement accounts in their own name and the vehicle and any personal property in their possession. He asked the court to award him the home. He agreed to assume the community debt if he did not have to pay spousal maintenance.

Mother Did Not Violate Washington Custody Order by Claiming Child on Her Taxes

November 25, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Who gets to claim the children as dependents on their tax returns can be a contentious issue in a Washington custody case. A father recently sought a contempt order against the mother when she claimed one of the children as a dependent.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties entered into an agreed child support order when they divorced in 2009. The trial court’s final child support order provided that the mother would have the right to claim the child identified as T.A.R. as a dependent on her taxes and the father had the right to claim the child identified as M.A.R. The order further provided that “WHEN THERE IS ONLY ONE CHILD ELIGIBLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION PURPOSES,” the mother would have the right to claim the children for even years and the other parent would have the right to claim them “for the opposite years.”

After learning the mother claimed T.A.R. in the 2021 tax year, the father moved for an order to show cause why the mother should not be held in contempt, arguing she violated the order when she claimed T.A.R. in 2021 after M.A.R. had turned eighteen. He argued the alternating clause applied after M.A.R. turned eighteen because T.A.R. was then the only “child.” He acknowledged he could have claimed M.A.R., but argued he only would have received $500 by doing so, while he would have a $6,000 tax exemption if he claimed T.A.R.

Washington Dissipation of Community Funds

July 12, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Property in a Washington divorce is generally characterized as of the date was acquired, but the date of acquisition alone does not determine its character. The court must consider whether the property was acquired by community or separate funds. Additionally, spouses may agree to convert property that otherwise would have been separate property. A husband recently challenged a trial court’s characterization of certain assets and expenditures.

Marriage

The appeals court’s unpublished opinion states the parties got married in 2004 in Arizona. Several years later, they signed a family trust agreement stating any property put in the trust would be community property. They bought a home in Washington in the name of the trust and moved into it in 2009. They subsequently rented that home out when they purchased another home, using funds from the trust for the down payment. The husband placed $820,000 he received from an arbitration related to his shares in his former employer in the trust’s bank account. The parties funded a new business from the trust. The business was successful, but closed in 2020 when its supplier went out of business.

The wife and child moved out in 2017 and the husband filed for divorce.

Washington Appeals Court Upholds Deviation from Standard Child Support Calculation

May 23, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington child support is determined based on the Washington State Child Support Schedule. A trial court may deviate from the standard child support calculation when it would be inequitable not to do so. The trial court must specify its reasons for deviation or for denying a request for deviation in its findings of fact. RCW 26.19.075 sets forth a non-exclusive list of reasons for deviation. A husband recently challenged a child support deviation, arguing the trial court should instead have characterized that amount as spousal maintenance.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties had three children together during their fourteen-year marriage. The trial court found the wife was voluntarily underemployed and imputed a monthly net income of $2,048 to her, but she actually earned about $800 from her part-time job. The husband had a net monthly income of $7,374.

The trial court determined the wife needed $3017.27 per month for her basic needs and expenses. The court determined she would receive that amount in combined spousal and child support. Pursuant to the child support guidelines, the husband’s adjusted child support would be $1,566. The trial court acknowledged that spousal maintenance would change the income of the parties for determining child support. To get to the intended total, the trial court adjusted the child support amount and ordered the husband to pay $2,017.27 in monthly child support and $1,000 in monthly spousal maintenance for a year. The court indicated child support would be recalculated based on the parties’ income without spousal support after the spousal support ended in a year.

Washington Appeals Court Upholds 54-Month Spousal Maintenance Award

April 25, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington spousal maintenance is intended to support a spouse until they are able to support themselves. The trial court’s primary consideration is the economic situations of the parties after the divorce. Courts must consider the factors set forth in RCW, but those factors are not exclusive. The factors include the financial resources of the spouse seeking maintenance, the time needed for the spouse to obtain sufficient education to find appropriate employment, the standard of living during the marriage, the length of the marriage, the age, physical condition, and financial obligations of the spouse seeking maintenance, the ability of the other spouse to meet their own needs and financial obligations in addition to those of the spouse seeking maintenance. The trial court does not have to make specific findings of fact for each of the factors. A maintenance award must be just, and a court abuses its discretion if it does not base maintenance on a fair consideration of the factors. A wife recently challenged an award of spousal maintenance, arguing the trial court abused its discretion.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties each finished college with a bachelor’s degree in 1992 and got married in 1994. They moved several times and lived in multiple states before and after the marriage. They agreed the wife would stay home and care for the children, but she did teach fitness classes when she could get childcare.

The wife started experiencing health issues shortly after they moved to Arizona in 2000 or 2001, affecting her ability to work. They moved to Washington in 2006 or 2007. She eventually started teaching yoga and Pilates. She started a business offering yoga classes, massage, and certain merchandise in 2010. She cut back on teaching after having what she believed was a Transient Ischemic Attack, though she was not formally diagnosed. She closed the business center at the end of 2017 as the result of a rent increase. She was in three car accidents in the following two years, causing her constant back and hip pain, issues with balance, shoulder pain, and PTSD.