Christine Cuhaciyan v. Ryan Riggins, 75353-3

Background

Parents Christine Cuhaciyan (mother) and Ryan Riggins (father) share son Jacob (b. 2012); original 2013 parenting plan named mother residential parent and provided limited father visitation.
In Nov 2014 Jacob returned to father with significant bruising under his armpits; medical exam at Seattle Children’s concluded bruising was non-accidental and consistent with being grabbed and squeezed.
Jacob reportedly told adults that the mother’s boyfriend, Ryan Best, had hurt or thrown him; CPS and hospital social workers recorded similar statements.
Court proceedings followed: temporary protection order restricting Best, petitions by both parents to modify the parenting plan (mother for minor modification and DVPO; father for major modification and sole custody), CASA and FCS assessments, expert medical testimony, and a four-day trial.
Trial court found by a preponderance that the bruising was intentional, occurred while Jacob was in mother’s care, and Best caused it; court modified the parenting plan to a 50/50 alternating-week schedule, prohibited leaving Jacob alone with Best (but did not expressly incorporate RCW 26.09.191 language), and adjusted child support.
On appeal mother challenged the modification and support orders; appellate court affirmed modification but remanded to (1) expressly add an RCW 26.09.191 restriction barring unsupervised contact by Best, (2) designate a custodial residential parent under RCW 26.09.285, and (3) allocate extraordinary/uninsured expenses in child support worksheets.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cuhaciyan)	Defendant's Argument (Riggins)	Held
Whether trial court erred in modifying parenting plan (custody/residential schedule)	Evidence does not show bruising occurred in her care or that Best intentionally injured Jacob; court relied on hearsay/speculation; presumption against modification	Substantial evidence supports finding of non-accidental injury occurring in mother’s care and that mother failed to safeguard child; modification necessary and in best interest	Affirmed: substantial evidence supported findings of injury in mother’s care and that modification (50/50 schedule) was not manifestly unreasonable
Whether court properly considered hearsay and expert statements admitted at trial	Objection to hearsay raised for first time on appeal; trial relied on reports and out-of-court statements improperly	Riggins: mother admitted and introduced many exhibits; no timely objection at trial; appellate court should not consider new hearsay objection	Court declined to consider hearsay objection raised for first time on appeal; evidence admitted without timely objection supported findings
Whether court should have imposed explicit RCW 26.09.191 restriction barring unsupervised contact with Best	Parenting order’s prohibition not set out in final parenting plan; must expressly include RCW 26.09.191 protection	Trial court intended to prohibit unsupervised contact but did not incorporate statutory language into final parenting plan	Remanded: appellate court required explicit RCW 26.09.191 restriction prohibiting Best from unsupervised contact with Jacob
Whether child support order properly allocated extraordinary/uninsured expenses and designated custodial parent for statutory purposes	Amended child support worksheets failed to allocate extraordinary expenses and did not designate custodial residential parent for state/federal statutes	Riggins: trial court corrected clerical items; but allocation missing in worksheets	Remanded: child support order must allocate uninsured medical and extraordinary expenses and court must designate a custodial residential parent under RCW 26.09.285

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of McDole, 122 Wn.2d 604 (1993) (strong presumption favoring custodial continuity; abuse of discretion standard for custody modification)
In re Marriage of Zigler, 154 Wn. App. 803 (2010) (review standard for parenting plan modification)
In re Marriage of Fiorito, 112 Wn. App. 657 (2002) (when decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds)
In re Marriage of Tomsovic, 118 Wn. App. 96 (2003) (statutory compliance with RCW 26.09.260 required for modification)
In re Marriage of Rossmiller, 112 Wn. App. 304 (2002) (consideration of factors for equal-residential schedules)
In re Custody of Brown, 153 Wn.2d 646 (2005) (CASA recommendations are advisory, not binding on the trial judge)
In re Marriage of Burrill, 113 Wn. App. 863 (2002) (substantial evidence supporting a finding controls despite contradictory evidence)
In re Marriage of Meredith, 148 Wn. App. 887 (2009) (appellate court will not reweigh credibility findings)
In re Parentage of Schroeder, 106 Wn. App. 343 (2001) (deference to trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses)
In re Marriage of Brewer, 137 Wn.2d 756 (1999) (unchallenged findings are verities on appeal)
In re Marriage of Chandola, 180 Wn.2d 632 (2014) (trial court findings of fact are verities if supported by substantial evidence)
In re Marriage of Drlik, 121 Wn. App. 269 (2004) (definition of substantial evidence and standard of review)