Beverly D. Van Santford v. Harold D. Sherwood
48274-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Beverly Van Santford and Harold Sherwood are parents of twins (b.2003); Kansas divorce decree (2009) named Sherwood primary residential parent with Van Santford liberal parenting time.
- Allegations of Sherwood’s abusive conduct prompted Kansas modification proceedings beginning 2012; the Kansas court later ordered the children to remain in Washington with Van Santford and relinquished jurisdiction to Washington.
- Van Santford filed to modify the parenting plan in Kitsap County (March 2014); parties stipulated to adequate cause for a modification hearing.
- Trial was set for October 13, 2015; Sherwood, then in Iowa, moved to continue citing work, travel cost, and preparation needs but did not appear at trial.
- The trial court denied the continuance, found Washington modification grounds and limiting factors under RCW 26.09.191(3), awarded full residential time and decision-making to Van Santford, and awarded her attorney fees.
- Sherwood appealed, challenging denial of the continuance, application of the best-interests standard, sufficiency of evidence, and the attorney-fee award; the Court of Appeals affirmed on the continuance issue and declined to address the remaining issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's (Sherwood) Argument | Defendant's (Van Santford) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motion to continue trial | Trial court abused discretion by not granting continuance for work, travel cost, and preparation | Case long-pending; two settlement conferences; trial date set months earlier; continuance unjustified | Denial was within court’s discretion; no manifest abuse of discretion; affirmed |
| Correct best-interests standard / statutory scheme | Court misapplied standard; should have treated as Child Relocation Act matter or failed to apply RCW 26.09.260 best-interests factors | This was not a Child Relocation Act case; parties stipulated to adequate cause; court applied modification statute | Court held Sherwood’s statutory arguments lacked merit and declined to review unsupported best-interests arguments |
| Sufficiency of the evidence supporting findings | Insufficient evidence to modify and to restrict Sherwood’s time | Trial court credibility findings supported record; findings unchallenged on appeal | Not considered on appeal because Sherwood failed to assign error to findings; unchallenged findings are verities |
| Award of attorney fees to Van Santford | Fees improper because Van Santford was allegedly intransigent and prolonged the case | Trial court awarded fees on other grounds; intransigence finding irrelevant | Fee award not shown to be erroneous on argued basis; Sherwood’s claim lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Welfare of A.D.R., 185 Wn. App. 76, 340 P.3d 252 (2014) (standard of review for continuance decisions)
- In re Marriage of Landry, 103 Wn.2d 807, 699 P.2d 214 (1985) (manifest abuse of discretion defined)
- Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 178 Wn. App. 850, 316 P.3d 520 (2013) (insufficient briefing/argument on appeal forecloses consideration)
- In re Marriage of Raskob, 183 Wn. App. 503, 334 P.3d 30 (2014) (unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal)
- In re Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wn. App. 42, 262 P.3d 128 (2011) (appellate courts do not reweigh credibility or evidence)