Family Law

Domestic Violence and Child Custody in Washington

June 7, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

A Washington parent with a documented history of domestic violence does not automatically lose time with their child. That is the practical lesson from a June 2026 decision out of Division Two of the Court of Appeals, and it captures something that surprises many parents in the middle of a custody fight. Domestic violence and child custody in Washington are governed by a statute that treats a domestic violence history as a serious limiting factor the court must weigh, and that same statute gives judges room to preserve a parent’s residential time when the underlying conduct has genuinely been addressed.

Case Summary: In re Parentage of L.R.A. (Court of Appeals, Division Two, June 2026, unpublished): Both parents had a history of domestic violence. The trial court declined to make a DV finding against the father and placed no limits on his residential time. The Court of Appeals held that refusal was an abuse of discretion, because the evidence, a prior DV finding, a CPS neglect finding, and threatening conduct toward family, supported one. The error was harmless. The father had completed his court-ordered domestic violence and chemical dependency treatment, and under former RCW 26.09.191(2)(n) the court could decline the mandatory restriction once it found the risk of recurrence remote. The mother, who had not addressed her own limiting factors, was limited to professionally supervised time. The parenting plan stood, and the appeal was affirmed.

The case, In re Parentage of L.R.A., is unpublished, so it does not set binding precedent. It still offers a clear window into how trial judges apply the parenting plan statute when both parents have troubled histories, and how the Court of Appeals reviews those calls. If you are working through a parenting plan where abuse allegations are part of the picture, the family law team at Blair & Kim can help you understand where you stand.

Washington Court Reverses Denial of Parenting Plan Modification After Trial Court Miscalculated Parenting Time

April 22, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

Changing a parenting plan in Washington is never easy. The law deliberately makes modifications difficult to protect children from the instability of constant schedule changes. But when a parent’s work schedule changes and they want a modest adjustment to their residential time, the law also provides a pathway: the minor modification under RCW 26.09.260(5). In In re Marriage of McCormick, No. 41124-9-III (Wash. Ct. App. April 9, 2026), the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of a father’s petition for a minor modification because the court failed to properly calculate whether the requested change fell within the statute’s 24-day limit. If you are seeking to modify a parenting plan in Washington, this decision illustrates both the process and the pitfalls.

Whether you need to modify an existing parenting plan or respond to a modification petition, the family law team at Blair & Kim can help. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

What Is a Minor Modification Under Washington Law?

Why Informal Side Agreements After a Divorce Can Cost You

February 26, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

When a divorce is finalized in Washington, the dissolution decree assigns specific debts and obligations to each spouse. But life does not stop at the decree. Cars break down, financial circumstances shift, and ex-spouses sometimes make informal arrangements to address new realities. The problem is that these side agreements can fundamentally change who owes what—and if something unexpected happens, the spouse who relied on an informal deal may end up with nothing to enforce. A recent Washington Court of Appeals decision, In re Marriage of Hoffner, No. 60680-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2026), illustrates exactly how this plays out. If you are going through a divorce or dealing with enforcement of a decree in the Seattle area, the family law attorneys at Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC can help you protect your rights at every stage.

What Happened in the Hoffner Case?

The Hoffners’ divorce decree, based on a CR 2A agreement, required the husband to pay off a specific bank account debt—an Alaska account with a balance of approximately $57,600—that was connected to the wife’s car. The decree contemplated that proceeds from the sale of the marital home would cover this debt, but the home sold for less than expected, leaving about $27,000 still owed on the account. The husband agreed to pay the remaining balance in installments.

Then the wife’s car developed mechanical problems. The parties made a side agreement: the wife would trade in her car, the husband would cosign on a replacement vehicle, and the husband would make monthly payments on the new car’s loan until he had paid off the approximately $19,000 still owed from the original decree obligation. The husband also paid the insurance on the replacement car.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Child Support Modification after Father Inherits $5.1 Million

December 7, 2025 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

In some cases, circumstances change after a court orders child support. A Washington child support order may be modified if there has been a substantial change in circumstances, if it has been a year or more since the order was entered and it causes a “severe economic hardship. . .” or if it has been two years or more since the last order, adjustment or modification was entered, and there have been changes in the income of either party. RCW 26.09.170. In a recent unpublished case, a father challenged a modification to his child support modification after the court found he had inherited more than $5.1 million and calculated his gross monthly income at $425,000.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the father petitioned for divorce in 2018 and the court ultimately issued a final divorce decree, parenting plan, and child support order.

The mother petitioned for modification of the child support order several years later. The father testified he had recently come into an inheritance and the wife offered evidence to show he had used the inheritance to support himself while he was not employed. The court held that a modification was warranted due to the inheritance, along with the mother’s new income and her own inheritance. According to the court’s order, the mother had received $186,819 and the father more than $5.1 million in non-retirement assets and sums. The court also noted the mother’s new income was $5,883.14.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Committed Intimate Relationship Property Division

October 13, 2025 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

Washington recognizes committed intimate relationships (“CIRs”), which are cohabiting relationships that are stable and like a marriage, although both parties know they are not lawfully married. Washington courts will distribute community-like property from a CIR in a just and equitable manner. A man recently appealed a property division after a court found he had been in a CIR with his former partner.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties were involved in a CIR between 2009 and 2021. The man conceded the existence of the CIR on appeal. The man owned a home in Seattle and the woman moved into it with him in June 2009. They moved to Bainbridge Island in approximately 2011 and remained there until the CIR ended in July 2021.

The woman petitioned for a distribution of the parties’ community-like property. She testified she had helped with the mortgage and other expenses when they lived in Seattle. She did not however, testify regarding the value of her work or whether it increased the value of the home.

Father Failed to Show Adequate Cause for a Washington Parenting Plan Modification Hearing

September 29, 2025 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

A parent seeking modification of a Washington parenting plan must meet the statutory criteria for modification. A father recently challenged a court’s determination he failed to show adequate cause for a hearing on his modification petition.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties divorced in April 2019 and the court entered an agreed parenting plan, which did not establish a residential schedule. The parenting plan provided the four children would live with their mother, except scheduled to live with the father. The parties were to engage in a good faith effort to reach an agreement for the schedule for the month by the 20^th of the preceding month.

The father petitioned for a minor modification in February 2020, alleging there was no mandatory minimum residential time for him and the mother intentionally kept him from having residential time.

Washington Appeals Court Vacates Supplemental Findings and Reverses and Remands Property Division in Divorce

August 25, 2025 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

Property divisions and child custody in a Washington divorce can be contentious. In a recent case, the former husband requested supplemental findings after the wife appealed the property division and residential schedule. The appeals court vacated the supplemental findings and determined the trial court had erred by awarding property that, based on the evidence, did not belong to either party.

According to the appeals court, the parties had an arranged marriage in Cambodia in 2004 and subsequently got married in Washington. They had three children together. The wife filed for divorce in 2021.

The court adopted the husband’s proposed property division. It found the parties had a house in Washington valued at $720,000 with a $224,928 mortgage. The court ordered the house be sold to pay any outstanding community debt, with the parties equally sharing any additional proceeds. The court also found the parties had a house in Cambodia, which it awarded to the wife, valued at $115,000.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Spousal Maintenance Award to Former Husband

July 11, 2025 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

Spousal maintenance can be a contentious issue in some Washington divorces. In Washington, a court may order spousal maintenance in a divorce case in the amount and for the amount of time “as the court deems just,” after it considers the relevant factors. RCW 26.09.090 sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors, including the financial of the party who is requesting maintenance; how long it would take them to obtain education or training to find appropriate employment; their standard of living while married; the length of the marriage; their physical and emotional condition, age, and financial obligations; and the other party’s ability to meet their own financial obligations.

In a recent unpublished case, a former wife appealed an order awarding the husband spousal maintenance after he alleged he was medically unable to work. The parties got married in September 2015 and the wife filed for divorce in July 2022. They settled the property division, so only the parenting plan and spousal maintenance were at issue at trial.

The husband testified he was unable to work due to an injury in 2019, so his only income was about $2,700 annually from his farm. The funds from the settlement for his accident had all gone toward expenses and legal fees.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Divorce Despite Allegations Documents Were Misrepresented

June 29, 2025 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

In some Washington divorce cases, one party may have advantages over the other. In a recent case, a former husband sought to vacate the divorce order, arguing the wife had misrepresented the documents he signed.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the husband’s father was American and his mother was Vietnamese. Although he spoke “conversational English,” the husband could not read or write in English beyond his name.

The husband signed a quitclaim deed in August 2023 transferring the parties’ house to the wife with no consideration.

Full Time Not Necessarily 40 Hours When Calculating Washington Child Support

May 29, 2025 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

When a court orders Washington child support, it must follow the statutes and make the required findings. In a recent unpublished case, a father challenged a child support modification order that imputed income to him and required him to share in expenses related to the child’s gymnastics activities.

The mother petitioned to modify the original child support order based on changes in income and asked the court to order the father to share expenses related to the child’s gymnastics.

The father asked for a deviation, claiming he supported his wife and her two children. He also asked for a deduction because the child was on his insurance. His documentation showed that he paid a flat “Employee + Family” rate that was not based on the number of family members.