Family Law

Washington DVPO and the Relocation Presumption

September 30, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington family law recognizes a rebuttable presumption that relocation of a child under a parenting plan will be permitted. That presumption does not apply, however, if the parents have “substantially equal residential time.” “Substantially equal time” generally means the child spends at least 45% of their residential time with each parent pursuant to a court order. RCW 26.09.525. A father recently challenged a relocation, partly because the trial court applied the presumption by considering how the residential time changed under a Domestic Violence Protection Order (“DVPO”).

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the mother sought a DVPO against the father after seeing severe bruising on their two-year-old daughter.

The mother filed a notice of intent to move the children. She asked that the father be evaluated for substance abuse and anger management or domestic violence and comply with the treatment recommendations. She also requested the court suspend his residential time for non-compliance.

Washington Appeals Court Reverses DVPO that Excluded Parties’ Minor Child

September 21, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When a parent seeks a Washington domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”), they may want to include their minor children as protected parties. If the protection order is against the other parent, it can affect that parent’s visitation and custody. In a recent case, a mother appealed a DVPO that did not include her three-year-old child as a protected party.

The appeals court’s opinion stated the mother had petitioned for a protection order to protect herself and her child against her boyfriend, who was also the child’s father. She requested an order restraining him from any contact with her or the child, from coming within 1,000 feet of her home or workplace or the child’s daycare. She asked for sole custody of the child. She asked the court to order the father to participate in treatment or counseling. She requested the order be effective for over a year.

She alleged multiple incidents of domestic violence by the father, including incidents in which she said he shoved her and threatened her. She stated the father was under investigation for an incident in which he threw her against the wall and to the floor, choked her, and banged her head against the floor. She alleged this incident occurred in front of the child.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Post-Secondary Educational Support

August 20, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington postsecondary educational support may be ordered when a child is dependent and relies upon the parents for reasonable necessities. The court has discretion in ordering postsecondary educational support. RCW 26.19.090 provides a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered.

A mother recently challenged a court’s denial of her motion for postsecondary educational support for her son after the court had awarded such support for her daughter a few years earlier.

According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the initial child support order entered in 2012 was amended in June 2020 to adjust the support for the son and order the father to pay 58% of the daughter’s postsecondary educational expenses. At that time, $9,454.69 in monthly net income was imputed to the father.

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 Court Concludes No Committed Intimate Relationship after Approximately Six Years Cohabitation

June 27, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington law recognizes “committed intimate relationships,” (“CIRs”) and allows courts to equitably distribute property when people separate after living together in a marriage-like relationship and acquiring property that would have been considered community property if they were lawfully married. In determining if a CIR existed, courts consider a number of factors, including the parties’ intent, the length of the relationship, whether the parties cohabited continuously, whether they pooled their resources for joint projects, and the purpose of the relationship. In a recent case, a mother appealed a trial court’s judgment that she had not been in a CIR with her child’s father.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the mother and her young child lived in a rental when the parties met. The father owned his home and several acres, as well as a rental home. The parties agreed to date exclusively in October or November of 2011. The mother told the father she was pregnant in April 2012. The mother claimed they had agreed to have a child, but the father denied discussing or wanting a child before the pregnancy.

The father claimed the mother wanted to live together because she was having difficulty paying her bills after changing jobs. He said he thought it was too soon, but felt pressured due to the pregnancy and the mother’s expenses. The trial court found they started living together around June 2012. Continue reading

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 Father to Pay Standard Child Support Despite Providing Child Care

March 16, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When a court enters a Washington child support order, it begins by determining the standard calculation according to RCW 26.19.020. The standard calculation is the presumptive amount owed. The court then allocates the child support between the parent’s based on their respective share of the combined monthly net income. The trial court may deviate from the standard calculation based on various factors, including income, expenses and debt, and the residential schedule. In a recent case, a father challenged a court order, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for deviation.

The mother had been a stay-at-home mother during the marriage but got a job after the separation. The father’s gross monthly income was about $9,353.37 and the mother’s was about $3,120.

The mother petitioned for divorce. The parties subsequently signed a CR 2A agreement including a parenting plan that gave the parents equal residential time. The father would be responsible for childcare while the mother was at work during her residential time. Remaining issues would be decided by trial by affidavit.

Washington Spousal Maintenance Modification

February 19, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

An award of spousal maintenance in Washington may generally only be modified if the party seeking modification can show a substantial change of circumstances. RCW 26.09.170(1). Under Washington case law, the change must not have been within the parties’ contemplation when the decree was entered. A former wife recently challenged a trial court’s denial of modification of her spousal maintenance.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties entered into a separation agreement that required the husband to pay $4,000 per month and 40% of his annual bonus as spousal maintenance for seven years, starting February 1, 2014. The terms of the agreement were incorporated into a decree of legal separation, which was ultimately converted into a decree of dissolution.

By the terms of the agreement, the payments would end in January 2021. The ex-wife moved to modify the decree in December 2020. She alleged health issues had prevented her from working in her profession as an art teacher since spring of 2019. She also alleged the ex-husband’s salary had substantially increased since the separation.

Washington Court Denies Annulment

January 9, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A trial court must grant an annulment to parties married outside Washington if the court finds the marriage was void or voidable pursuant to the laws where the marriage was contracted, unless it was subsequently validated. RCW 26.09.040(4)(c). A wife recently appealed a court’s denial of her petition for a Washington annulment.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties had a ceremonial marriage in India in 2009 and subsequently moved to the U.S and lived together as spouses for several years. They had a child together in 2014. The husband moved out in 2017 and the wife petitioned for legal separation. She subsequently amended to petition for annulment. She alleged the husband had fraudulently represented having registered their marriage in Indian, and that, because he had actually failed to register, the marriage was legally void. The husband asked the court to dissolve the marriage instead.

The primary issue at trial was whether the marriage certificate was signed and registered pursuant to Indian law. The wife offered evidence of irregularities in the certificate the husband used in his immigration. She presented an authenticated document from India stating there was no record of the marriage. The husband presented a partially-signed marriage certificate. The wife argued it was probably forged. The husband also submitted a fully-signed version of the marriage certificate with his supplemental briefing. The trial court denied the wife’s motion to strike it.

Washington Appeals Court Applies ADR Provision to Enforcement Action in Divorce

December 12, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Parties to a Washington divorce may reach an agreement to resolve the issues in their case. A CR 2A agreement, named after Washington Superior Court Civil Rule 2A, can resolve a number of issues, including property distribution and debt allocation. CR 2A agreements may also include an alternative dispute resolution requirement.

A husband recently appealed an enforcement order, arguing the matter should have been resolved through the alternative dispute process set forth in the CR 2A agreement. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties got married in 1991. They separated in 2017 and the husband filed for divorce at the end of 2018. The marital estate was worth about $194 million. The parties entered into a CR 2A Agreement and Separation Contract that allocated some property and made financial management arrangements in August of 2019.

The agreement allocated a development project to the husband and allowed him to borrow up to $3 million from the wife with 6% interest. She could choose to either invest the loan into the project or make the loan part of the equalizing payment. If she chose not to invest in the project, the agreement required the husband to pay the equalizing payment with 7.5% interest from the date she notified him of that decision. The payment would be due within 12 months of entry of the divorce decree. If the payment was not paid timely, it would accrue 12% per annum interest.