Seattle Attorneys Blog
A trial court generally can only modify a Washington parenting plan if it finds, based on new facts since the prior plan, that there has been a substantial change in circumstances of the nonmoving party or the child. The court must also find the modification is in the child’s best interests and necessary to serve the child’s best interests. RCW 26.09.260. RCW 26.09.270 requires a court to deny a modification motion unless adequate cause to hear the motion is established in the affidavits. A mother recently challenged court orders dismissing her modification petition and denying her motion for reconsideration.
Pursuant to the permanent parenting plan, the child lived primarily with the father. The mother could have visitation every other weekend if certain conditions were met. According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, there were limitations on the mother’s visitation due to her “long-term problem with drugs, alcohol or other substances. . .” The parenting plan further provided that visitation would be revoked if she consumed drugs or alcohol.
Modification Petition
The mother petitioned for modification in 2023, alleging the father engaged “in a pattern of emotional and psychological abuse as well as coercive control over [the child].”
The trial court pointed out the mother should have raised her concerns in an order to show cause for lack of compliance, not in a modification proceeding. The court also pointed out her evidence and dated back to 2020, 2021, and early 2022 and the issues would have been raised earlier if they were truly “pressing matters.” The court also rejected the mother’s claim the father had neglected the child’s medical care. The trial court concluded there was not adequate cause to even hold a full hearing on the petition to modify and dismissed the petition.
Motion for Reconsideration
The mother moved for reconsideration.
The father alleged in his declaration that the mother had a history of aggression toward the child, suicide attempts, and hospitalizations related to mental health. He also provided purported texts between the child and the mother. The child stated she was “scare and angry” and that she “felt unsafe.” The child also informed the mother she was not comfortable going to the mother’s home by herself or going places with the mother. She also stated the mother had been scaring her.
The father also presented a police incident report regarding a child welfare check in 2023, stating the child denied abuse in her father’s home and said she felt safe there. The report stated the officer “ha[d] no concerns.”
The mother claimed the father had not accurately represented the text messages between her and the child, denied being physically aggressive toward the child, and alleged the father had instilled a fear of her in the child and that the child was afraid of his response if she spent time with the mother.
The mother argued at the hearing for reconsideration that there was a substantial change in circumstances because of the father’s “alienating behavior,” “emotional abuse,” and “pattern of emotional, psychological control” against the child.
The trial court found the mother had not shown adequate cause and denied the motion for reconsideration.
The mother appealed, arguing the trial court’s decision to deny the petition was manifestly unreasonable and based on untenable grounds.
Adequate Cause
The mother argued the dismissal of her petition was based on untenable grounds because the record did not support the court’s fact determinations.
The appeals court noted the trial court had explained the basis for its ruling in its oral ruling. The court had stated that the mother should have raised her concerns in an order to show cause for lack of compliance with the parenting plan instead of a modification petition. The trial court also noted that if the issues were so “pressing,” the mother would have brought them to the court’s attention sooner.
The appeals court noted the record did not support the mother’s argument that the trial court had ignored her evidence or relied on unsupported facts. The record showed that the trial court reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties and weighed it. The court had considered the lack of timeliness of the mother’s allegations.
The mother also seemed to argued the court abused its discretion by refusing to consider or her to present information regarding emotional abuse and coercive control of the child by the father. She cited a case in which the appeals court held the trial court could not categorically exclude children’s testimony. The appeals court noted the trial court had not excluded the mother’s testimony based on a blanket rule, or even excluded her testimony at all. It had heard her argument and indicated it had reviewed her materials.
The mother also argued the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard because RCW 26.09.191 does not require a court to find adequate cause under RCW 26.09.270 or a substantial change in circumstances under RCW 26.09.260(1) when there is evidence of domestic violence.
Pursuant to RCW 26.09.191(2)(a)(ii), a court generally must limit a residential time for a parent whom the court finds has physically or sexually abused the child or engaged in a pattern of emotional abuse. The mother did not cite legal authority supporting her argument that the court was not required to find adequate cause and a substantial change in circumstances in a modification proceeding where there are allegations of abuse, so the appeals court rejected that argument.
The appeals court also concluded the mother had not established the court applied incorrect legal standards. She failed to show the dismissal was based on untenable reasons.
The mother also argued the court’s decision was manifestly unreasonable because it exposed her and the child to a risk of harm. She argued the decision was not within the range of acceptable choices based on the court’s findings.
The appeals court rejected this argument. The trial court concluded the mother had not shown adequate cause and its findings supported the decision to dismiss the petition. The appeals court noted that the trial court is in a better position determine if the affidavits establish adequate cause. The appeals court concluded that the trial court’s decision was within the range of acceptable choices and the mother failed to show it was manifestly unreasonable. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the petition.
The appeals court also found the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying the mother’s motion for reconsideration. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s orders.
Call a Skilled Family Law Attorney
This case shows the importance of following appropriate procedures and utilizing the appropriate mechanisms. The trial court stated the mother should have raised her concerns in an order to show cause rather than a petition for modification. If you are dealing with a custody dispute, a knowledgeable Washington custody lawyer can work with you and advise you on how to appropriately address your concerns. Call Blair & Kim, PLLC, at (206) 622-6562 to schedule a consultation.