Seattle Attorneys Blog
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According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties divorced in April 2019 and the court entered an agreed parenting plan, which did not establish a residential schedule.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 20th 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.
The father was stationed with the military in Alabama but kept a home in Tacoma. He testified he flew back to Washington for his residential time. He also testified he anticipated returning to Tacoma permanently in June or July of 2022. He asked to be allowed to exercise alternating week residential time when he could be in Washington upon 30-days’ notice.
The court modified the parenting plan, determining the plan was “unworkable when there is high conflict.” The court also stated the alternating week schedule would not work due to the conflict, distance, and unpredictability of the father’s career. The court named the mother primary residential parent, with the father having the children the first and third weekends each month from Thursday afternoon to Monday morning. The court also stated a goal of reducing and possibly eliminating conflict.
The father moved to Tacoma in January 2022. He moved for a major modification in January 2024, arguing the children’s living situation was harmful to their health. He requesting an alternating-week schedule again.
The superior court commissioner determined the father had not shown adequate cause for a trial for a major modification and a judge adopted the commissioner’s rulings.
The father appealed.
Parenting Plan Modification
The father sought modification under RCW 26.09.260(2)(c). A parent seeking a major modification must generally show that there has been a substantial change in circumstances and that the modification is in the child’s best interest and necessary to serve the child’s best interest. If they are seeking modification under subsection (2)(c), they must also show the current environment is detrimental to the physical, mental or emotional health of the child and that the advantage of the change for the child would outweigh any harm. Additionally, the parent must show adequate cause to modify the parenting plan to receive a full modification hearing by submitting an affidavit stating the specific factual allegations justifying the modification. RCW 26.09.270.
Adequate Cause
The trial court concluded the father had not shown a substantial change in circumstances, partly because the 2021 parenting plan had contemplated his move back to Tacoma. The court also concluded he had not presented sufficient evidence of adequate cause that the children’s current environment was detrimental and the harm of a change was outweighed by the advantage.
Detrimental Environment
The father alleged the mother had married a man in December 2021 who was subsequently arrested and incarcerated for possession of child pornography. He also alleged she created a video that showed she had suicidal ideation. He further alleged a pattern of conduct designed to alienate him from participating in the children’s activities and medical care.
It was undisputed the mother divorced her husband after learning about his conduct. The father had not presented any evidence the children had been exposed to the unlawful behavior. Furthermore, it was also undisputed the mother’s ex-husband was no longer a part of the children’s environment. The appeals court noted the video the father referenced was submitted to a contest for a car and the father presented no authority the court had to accept the mother had suicidal ideation based on her statements in the video. He also presented no evidence the children saw the video.
The court also found the father’s concerns were generally around “how the [parties] parent.” The court further found that any concerns with the mental and emotional health of the children was the result of the parties’ conflict, which was within the parties’ control. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s finding.
The father denied creating conflict and attributed all conflict to the mother. The appeals court acknowledged the mother had engaged in “petty” and “unconstructive behavior, but stated the record shows the father equally drove a lot of the conflict. Furthermore, he did not persuade the appeals court that there was “no tenable basis” for the trial court to conclude any detriment to the children was because of the conflict between the parents and not the children living with the mother most of the time.
Balancing Test and Best Interest of the Children
The father argued the trial court had not properly weighed the advantages of the proposed change against the presumed detriment or properly consider the best interest of the children. The father argued the children wanted alternating schedules, but did not identify any evidence in the record. The appeals court pointed out that the children’s wishes are not determinative of what is in their best interest. The father also argued his proposed schedule would give the children more stability, access to extracurricular activities, and “foster a more supportive and stable environment for their continued development.”
The appeals court pointed out, however, that the alternating weekly schedule would not reduce the amount of exchanges or opportunities for the parties to engage in conflict.
The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, but denied the mother’s request for fees on appeal.
Call a Family Law Attorney
Whether you are seeking or opposing a parenting plan modification, a knowledgeable Washington child custody lawyer can help. Set up a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC, by calling (206) 622-6562.