Ameena Aamer v. Sharief Youssef
75378-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jun 19, 2017Background
- Parties: Ameena Aamer (mother) and Sharief Youssef (father) divorced after a short marriage; child H.Y. born March 2015.
- Trial court appointed Dr. Hedrick as parenting evaluator; she interviewed parents, observed each with the child, reviewed limited collateral sources, and administered psychological tests.
- Dr. Hedrick concluded father showed interpersonal deficits, minimization of problems, and a hyper‑focus on the child; she recommended group therapy and a delay in overnight parenting until after treatment.
- Father produced two expert critics who argued Dr. Hedrick’s report was short, selectively used evidence, culturally biased, and methodologically flawed; they recommended earlier overnights and a 50/50 plan.
- Trial court found Dr. Hedrick’s report “complete and reliable,” adopted most recommendations (but shortened the recommended delay for overnights), and incorporated counseling and evaluation requirements into the parenting plan.
- Father appealed, claiming the court abused discretion by relying on an unreliable, culturally biased expert report and failed to consider statutory factors (RCW 26.09.187); mother sought partial appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Youssef (Appellant) Argument | Aamer (Respondent) / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by relying on Dr. Hedrick’s report | Report was incomplete, unreliable, methodologically flawed, selectively used data, and culturally biased | Trial court may weigh expert credibility; Dr. Hedrick addressed criticisms and considered cultural issues; report met the appointment order | No abuse of discretion; appellate court defers to trial court’s assessment of expert weight |
| Whether evaluator’s cultural handling required reversal under Black | Cultural bias tainted the report and decision; requires new parenting plan | No evidence of the affirmative, pervasive bias found in Black; evaluator considered cultural factors and used a culturally knowledgeable imam as collateral | No reversible cultural‑bias error; Black is distinguishable |
| Whether the record shows consideration of RCW 26.09.187 factors | Trial court failed to show it considered statutory factors for residential schedule | Record contained substantial evidence on relevant factors and counsel presented them; court need not make explicit findings on every factor | Satisfied: record shows statutory factors were available for consideration |
| Whether specific parenting plan provisions (overnight delay, schedules, travel restriction) were an abuse of discretion | Delay of overnights not tied logically to findings; schedule and travel restrictions overbroad; plan should move toward 50/50 | Court reasonably linked delay to concerns about father’s interpersonal functioning and co‑parenting; travel restriction limits removal, not parental travel; court has broad discretion | No abuse of discretion; court reduced evaluator’s recommended delay and properly exercised discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Littlefield, 940 P.2d 1362 (Wash. 1997) (trial courts have broad discretion in parenting plans)
- In re Marriage of Katare, 283 P.3d 546 (Wash. 2012) (appellate review of custody and expert testimony weight)
- In re Marriage of Crolev, 588 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1978) (record need not contain explicit findings for each statutory factor when substantial evidence is present)