In Re: Catherine Maclaren v. Travis Maclaren
440 P.3d 1055
Wash. Ct. App.2019Background
- Father (Travis) petitioned to modify a 2012 parenting plan for two children, alleging substantial change: older child H.M. was diagnosed with autism (ICAN, 2017) and later had suicidal ideation (Seattle Children’s Hospital, June 2017); mother (Catherine) disputed the autism diagnosis and refused recommended autism treatments.
- Travis filed affidavits, medical and school records (ICAN report, Children’s Hospital notes, school IEP materials) and requested a guardian ad litem; Catherine submitted contrary evaluations (auditory processing and speech-language), declarations, and school notices showing IEP services in place.
- The trial court considered competing declarations and denied adequate cause to schedule a hearing, finding professionals and records showed services and disagreement rather than evidence the children were at risk.
- Travis appealed, arguing the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and abused its discretion in denying a hearing under RCW 26.09.260 and RCW 26.09.270.
- The Court of Appeals held the trial court used the correct legal standard but abused its discretion: the uncontroverted evidence (autism diagnosis, suicidal ideation, documentation recommending autism-specific services which mother declined) met the statutory adequate-cause threshold to hold a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Travis) | Defendant's Argument (Catherine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for "adequate cause" to schedule hearing under RCW 26.09.270 | Adequate cause requires alleging facts which, if proven, would support modification (lower burden) | Court should require affidavits show facts supporting requested modification and may consider opposing affidavits | Court: Adequate cause requires more than bare allegations—movant must present facts and supporting evidence for each element to modify; court did not apply wrong legal standard |
| Whether affidavits/evidence established a substantial change in circumstances and best interest/necessity to modify (RCW 26.09.260(1)) | ICAN autism diagnosis, Children’s Hospital suicidal ideation, expert recommendations, and mother’s refusal of autism treatment show new, substantial change and risk warranting modification | Mother presented contrary professional opinions and school IEP/services, arguing the issues are being addressed and diagnoses are disputed | Court: Trial court abused discretion; record uncontrovertedly showed new facts (autism diagnosis and suicidal ideation) and mother’s refusal of recommended treatment—sufficient to establish adequate cause to hold a hearing |
| Whether children’s present environment is detrimental to their physical, mental, or emotional health (RCW 26.09.260(2)(c)) | Untreated autism and documented suicidal ideation demonstrate a detrimental environment needing court inquiry | Mother: school services, counseling, and alternative diagnoses show needs are addressed and there is no grave danger | Court: Evidence supported reasonable inference that environment could be detrimental (untreated autism + suicidality); remanded for hearing |
| Requirement that trial court articulate reasons when denying full hearing | Trial court must weigh case-specific factors and state reasons on record | Trial court did provide rationale (disagreement of professionals; services in place) | Court: Although reasons were articulated, the factual findings were unsupported by the record and thus constituted an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Custody of E.A.T.W., 168 Wn.2d 335 (Wash. 2010) (interpreting "adequate cause" under RCW 26.09.270 and requiring affidavits set forth facts supporting each element to modify)
- In re Marriage of Jannot, 149 Wn.2d 123 (Wash. 2003) (trial court must weigh varied factors and articulate reasons on the record; adequate cause requires prima facie showing of each element)
- In re Marriage of Roorda, 25 Wn. App. 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980) (strong presumption against custody modification; adequate cause imposes heavy burden on petitioner)
- In re Marriage of Lemke, 120 Wn. App. 536 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (adequate cause means showing supporting facts for modification)
- In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (Wash. 1997) (standard for appellate review of discretionary trial court rulings)
- In re Marriage of McDole, 122 Wn.2d 604 (Wash. 1993) (custodial changes are highly disruptive; presumption in favor of continuity)
- Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 136 Wn.2d 322 (Wash. 1998) (explains standards for CR 12(b)(6) motions contrasted in analysis)