Chessica Arntson, V. Chad Opheikens, 58443-3

Chessica Arntson and Chad Opheikens divorced in June 2022; the court found Opheikens had a history of domestic violence (including a 2019 conviction) and imposed restrictions on his parenting time and decision-making under RCW 26.09.191.
Opheikens' parenting time was limited and a restraining order prevented him from contacting Arntson, other than for child exchanges.
In 2023, Opheikens moved for joint decision-making and equal residential time; Arntson agreed to only a modest increase in his residential time but objected to removing restrictions or granting equal time.
The trial court partially granted Opheikens’ motion, increasing his residential time to four nights every other week but did not alter other restrictions, including sole decision-making for Arntson and the restraining order.
Opheikens also moved for reconsideration, reiterating his previous arguments; the trial court denied the motion, finding repeated and abusive litigation.
On appeal, Opheikens challenged the final parenting plan, the restraining order, and denial of reconsideration; Arntson sought attorney fees due to the frivolous appeal.

Issue	Opheikens' Argument	Arntson's Argument	Held
Whether the restraining order should be lifted or modified	Initially agreed the order should remain; later, sought reconsideration and modifications	Sought to maintain the restraining order, with exceptions for child exchanges only	Issue was waived as it was not timely raised; restraining order affirmed
Whether domestic violence finding was properly the basis for restrictions	Contended the court used an outdated statutory definition and should not have continued the restrictions	Argued the domestic violence finding was valid and required restrictions under law	Restrictions affirmed; finding was based on valid, more inclusive definitions and past conviction
Whether the court erred in limiting residential time and not granting 50/50 custody	Claimed the court should have overridden the domestic violence findings and imposed no limitations	Asserted limitations are mandatory by statute after such findings	Court did not abuse discretion; continued restrictions were mandatory under RCW 26.09.191
Due process concerns over not being allowed to present further arguments	Argued he was denied due process when preventing repeated argument on equal residential time	No violation, as arguments were fully heard; repeated litigation deemed abusive	Court found due process was not violated; argument insufficiently briefed

In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wn.2d 114 (Wash. 2017) (articulates the abuse of discretion standard for parenting plans)
In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (Wash. 1997) (abuse of discretion if based on incorrect legal standard)
Seven Hills, LLC v. Chelan County, 198 Wn.2d 371 (Wash. 2021) (findings not disputed become verity on appeal)
Blair v. Wash. State Univ., 108 Wn.2d 558 (Wash. 1987) (pro bono counsel considered for attorney fee awards)