Araceli Felix v. Luis Melendez
48132-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Parents (Felix and Melendez) share two daughters; final parenting plan had children primarily reside with Melendez once school enrollment occurred.
- Melendez moved the children temporarily to Florida and then sought court approval for permanent relocation; Felix objected and sought a major modification making her primary residential parent, alleging abuse by Melendez’s wife (Santiago).
- Guardian ad litem (GAL) Bartholomew and CPS found no abuse warranting modification; GAL observed children comfortable in both homes and in Florida after the move.
- Trial court held a hearing, made findings on each RCW 26.09.520 relocation factor, allowed permanent relocation, denied Felix’s major modification petition, and entered a new parenting plan.
- Felix moved for reconsideration alleging newly discovered evidence (including allegations about a church/cult); the trial court denied reconsideration, finding no newly discovered evidence under CR 59.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Felix) | Defendant's Argument (Melendez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in permitting permanent relocation to Florida | Relocation was not supported by substantial evidence; would harm children’s relationships and best interests | Relocation was made in good faith for employment/family support, benefits to children (school, stability) outweigh harm | Court: Denied relief — relocation permitted; trial court made findings on each RCW relocation factor and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether court erred denying major modification naming Felix primary residential parent | Felix alleged Santiago abused children and that current environment was detrimental, warranting change | GAL, CPS, and evidence showed no abuse; children comfortable with both households; no substantial change justifying modification | Court: Denied — no abuse found, no basis for modification; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether motion for reconsideration should have been granted based on newly discovered evidence | Felix presented new declarations, emails, and allegations (cult involvement, police incident) as newly discovered facts | Court found Felix knew or could have discovered the information earlier; one document already offered at trial; allegations not newly discovered under CR 59 | Court: Denied — no newly discovered evidence; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether appellate arguments/evidentiary objections should be considered on appeal | Felix contended trial evidentiary rulings and trial judge comments denied due process | Melendez argued record does not support Felix’s contentions and briefs lack required record citations | Appellate court: Declined to consider poorly supported constitutional and evidentiary claims due to RAP noncompliance and lack of record citations |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (2004) (articulates presumption favoring relocation by a fit parent and relocation-factor analysis)
- In re Marriage of McNaught, 189 Wn. App. 545 (2015) (objection to relocation triggers fact‑finding hearing and burden to rebut presumption)
- In re Marriage of McDole, 122 Wn.2d 604 (1993) (standard: uphold trial court findings supported by substantial evidence; presumption against modification)
- Bay v. Jensen, 147 Wn. App. 641 (2008) (trial court must enter specific findings or otherwise show consideration of each relocation factor)
- Jacob's Meadow Owners Ass'n v. Plateau 44 II, LLC, 139 Wn. App. 743 (2007) (standard of review for motions for reconsideration: abuse of discretion)