In re Marriage of: Anne Marshall (Monoskie) and Phillip C. Monoskie, 35067-3

Background

Parents Anne (Marshall) and Phillip Monoskie had a 2013 parenting plan that split their five children between households, with the youngest alternating six months each year and reserved right to seek placement when school-aged.
In 2015 both parents filed relocation notices: Marshall to return to Washington from South Carolina; Monoskie to move to Ohio. Each opposed the other's relocation and asked to have all five children placed with them.
The trial court approved both relocations under RCW 26.09.520, finding the statute's relocation factors favored permitting both moves.
The trial court declined to modify the existing residential placement schedule for the older children, applying the presumption of custodial continuity and finding no detrimental environment requiring change under RCW 26.09.260(2)(c).
The court did, however, award primary placement of the youngest child to Marshall, treating that decision as an initial placement (RCW 26.09.187(3)) because the youngest had no primary residential parent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly approved both relocation notices	Marshall contended the court misapplied its authority and should not have allowed relocations that would separate children	Monoskie argued relocations should be allowed and court followed RCW 26.09.520 factors	Court affirmed: properly applied relocation presumption and factors; both relocations permitted
Whether the court could modify residential placements in the relocation proceeding without separate adequate-cause threshold	Marshall argued the court misunderstood its modification authority and should have modified placements to reunite children	Monoskie argued modification requires a showing and preservation of residential continuity; here court correctly applied merged relocation/modification analysis	Court held relocation context permits merits consideration without prethreshold adequate-cause showing, but modification still requires showing that change is in child's best interest; petition failed
Whether the presumption of residential continuity barred modification of older children's placements	Marshall argued desire to place all five children together justified modification	Monoskie argued presumption favors existing placements absent detriment to child	Court held presumption applies; no showing that present environments were detrimental, so continuity retained
Significance of awarding youngest child to Marshall—does it indicate Monoskie unfit?	Marshall argued awarding youngest child to her showed Monoskie unfit and contradictory findings	Monoskie argued youngest's placement was an initial placement decision with no implication of unfitness	Court held youngest's placement was initial-placement analysis (no primary parent) under RCW 26.09.187(3); decision does not mean Monoskie is unfit

Key Cases Cited

In re Parentage of Jannot, 149 Wn.2d 123 (discusses trial court discretion in family law matters)
In re Marriage of McDole, 122 Wn.2d 604 (presumption favoring custodial continuity; modification is disfavored)
In re Marriage of Kim, 179 Wn. App. 232 (appellate review limited to whether findings are supported and proper factors considered)
In re Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wn. App. 790 (relocation statutory presumption favoring move)
In re Marriage of Grigsby, 112 Wn. App. 1 (relocation-modification interplay and factors)
In re Marriage of McDevitt, 181 Wn. App. 765 (relocation context allows consideration of modification merits without adequate-cause threshold)