Ginger Galando v. Matthew Paul Galando, 75294-4

Background

Ginger Galando moved to hold Matthew Galando in contempt, alleging violations of the parenting plan (treatment, monitoring, NA/AA attendance, psychological eval, OurFamilyWizard, telephone contact, derogatory remarks), unpaid medical expenses, and a court-ordered listing of the family home.
Hearing delayed; Matthew eventually provided declarations and took some steps (paid medical bills, activated OurFamilyWizard, obtained assessment, signed listing agreement with delayed active marketing date).
Trial court found Matthew willfully and in bad faith violated multiple provisions (treatment/monitoring, substance use, UA testing, NA/AA, derogatory remarks, residential provisions, OurFamilyWizard timing) and failed to list the house by the ordered date.
Court entered contempt judgment with purge conditions requiring compliance with parenting plan, child support, decree of dissolution, and special master order for six months; warned of jail for further noncompliance and no permissible payment delays.
Matthew conceded some violations (no UAs, no NA/AA, substance use) but appealed other contempt findings and certain purge conditions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ginger)	Defendant's Argument (Matthew)	Held
Whether Matthew was properly found in contempt for failing to comply with treatment/monitoring and thereby abdicating residential time	Matthew willfully refused required treatment/monitoring, causing harm to children	Matthew argued some requirements were later satisfied and court lacked authority to find contempt for earlier noncompliance	Court affirmed contempt: substantial evidence of willful refusal, bad faith, and harm to children
Whether contempt finding for making derogatory remarks to children was supported	Ginger testified Matthew told children she kept them from him and children were upset	Matthew disputed that derogatory remarks occurred or caused harm	Court affirmed: unchallenged findings and testimony supported contempt for derogatory comments
Whether contempt finding for failing to contact children by telephone (telephone/Skype provision) was proper	Ginger argued Matthew refused required telephone contact, causing harm	Matthew argued the parenting plan only permits telephone access and does not obligate contact	Court reversed contempt as to telephone contact: provision is permissive, not mandatory
Whether purge conditions (requiring compliance with parenting plan, child support, decree, and unrelated provisions) were proper and coercive	Ginger supported broad purge conditions to ensure compliance and protect children	Matthew argued some purge conditions were punitive or unrelated to violations and thus improper	Court affirmed most coercive purge conditions tied to the contemned violations but reversed purge requirements that forced compliance with unrelated decree provisions and the telephone-contact purge condition

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of James, 79 Wn. App. 436 (1995) (trial court has authority to enforce dissolution orders and contempt punishment reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23 (2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (1997) (court bases decision on untenable reasons when incorrect standard used)
In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wn.2d 337 (2003) (standard for reviewing findings of fact)
Merriman v. Cokeley, 168 Wn.2d 627 (2010) (definition of substantial evidence)
In re Marriage of Humphreys, 79 Wn. App. 596 (1995) (orders must be strictly construed in contempt actions)
Para-Med. Leasing, Inc. v. Hangen, 48 Wn. App. 389 (1987) (treat findings for what they are)
In re Application by Rapid Settlements, Ltd., for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights, 189 Wn. App. 584 (2015) (contempt sanctions and RCW 7.21.030(3) discussion)
In re Interest of Silva, 166 Wn.2d 133 (2009) (distinction between remedial and punitive contempt and purge-condition analysis)
In re Dependency of A.K., 162 Wn.2d 632 (2007) (purge condition coercive-effect test)
In re Interest of M.B., 101 Wn. App. 425 (2000) (purge condition must reasonably relate to the contempt)
R.A. Hanson Co., Inc. v. Magnuson, 79 Wn. App. 497 (1995) (court may award attorney fees for contempt proceedings)