Seattle Attorneys Blog
Trial courts have broad discretion to create a parenting plan, and abuse that discretion only if they make a decision that is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons. In re Marriage of Littlefield. A mother recently appealed a parenting plan allowing the father parenting time on the Sabbath both parents claimed to observe according to the Seventh-day Adventist faith.
The final parenting plan identified the mother as the primary parent and the parties entered an order by agreement for the father’s visitation.
The father objected when the mother moved for relocation. A temporary order allowed the move and gave the father one weekend a month for eight hours each on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parents were both devout Seventh-Day Adventists. They observed the Sabbath starting at sundown on Fridays and ending at sundown on Saturday. The mother refused to turn the child over to the father for a makeup visit from Thursday through Monday because it was on the Sabbath. The trial court found the mother acted in bad faith and granted the father’s motion for contempt. The court had found the mother in contempt four previous times for withholding the child.
The father proposed a residential schedule that would allow him parenting time on the Sabbath, and the mother objected. The mother testified that the child had outbursts after coming back from visitation with the father.
The court adopted the father’s proposed parenting plan, including time with the child on the Sabbath at times.
The mother appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by giving the father parenting time during the Sabbath. She argued that the father did not practice the Sabbath in the same way she did and visitation with him on the Sabbath was not in the child’s best interest.
The mother argued the court erred in finding: “The testimony showed that both parties honored and celebrated the Sabbath day consistent with their Seventh[-d]ay Adventist faith. There is no indication of harm to the child dependent upon which parent he is with on the Sabbath.” The appeals court, however, concluded the finding was supported by substantial evidence.
The mother did not identify the differences in how the father observed the Sabbath. The father testified his observation of the Sabbath was consistent with the Seventh-day Adventist faith. Both parties testified they were obligated to refrain from secular activities. The appeals court concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding both parties observed the Sabbath consistent with the Seventh-day Adventist faith.
The appeals court also concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings there were not any indications of harm to the child based on which parent he was with. The mother argued the child acted out after the father’s parenting time, but did not explain how that related to the Sabbath. She acknowledged the child’s acting out did not occur after visits on the Sabbath.
The mother also argued that the court’s finding the father recognized it would take time to rebuild his relationship with the child because of the damage caused by withholding, long distance, and alienation. The mother argued she had not alienated the child from the father. The appeals court noted, however, that there was evidence the mother withhold the child multiple times. The trial court also stated the mother was alienating the child from his father in its oral ruling.
The appeals court pointed out that, absent substantial evidence of either actual or potential harm based on parents’ conflicting religious beliefs, each parent has a right to their own beliefs and to raise the child. Custody and visitation are not awarded based on which parent has the most sincere belief or the correct practices.
The appeals court found no indication that the father’s parenting time on the Sabbath was not in the child’s best interest. The court’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the father parenting time on the Sabbath.
The mother also argued the trial court abused its discretion by finding her in contempt for refusing to turn over the child for visitation on the Sabbath.
Pursuant to RCW 26.09.184(7), a court may find a parent in contempt of court for failure to comply with a parenting plan. The court shall find the parent in contempt if it finds the parent did not comply with the order in bad faith. RCW 26.09.160(2)(b). Additionally, a parent’s refusal to perform the duties set forth in the parenting plan constitutes bad faith. RCW 26.09.160(1).
The mother argued there was not substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding she acted in bad faith. She argued that she did not comply because of her sincerely held religious beliefs.
The trial court, however, that the Sabbath seemed to be a pretext. The visit for which she was held in contempt included three nights that were not on the Sabbath. She testified she did not facilitate the visit because “it encompassed the Sabbath.”
The appeals court noted the mother knowingly and willfully refused to comply with the order. She did not point to any legal authority supporting her argument that sincerely held religious beliefs justified violating the court order. The appeals court concluded the mother did not establish a reasonable excuse for not complying with the order. The appeals court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding the mother in contempt.
The appeals court also granted the father’s request for attorney fees on appeal related to the contempt finding.
This case shows that sincerely held religious beliefs do not necessarily provide justification for violating a custody or visitation order. Before refusing to comply with an order, consult an experienced Washington family law attorney who can advise you of your rights. Call Blair & Kim, PLLC, at (206) 622-6562 to set up a consultation.