248 P.3d 1101
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Married in 1996, child A.C. born 2000; separation in 2002; trial court issued permanent parenting plan designating Kristine as primary residential parent with joint decision-making and Mark granted defined visitation.
- In 2007 a modified parenting plan shifted dispute resolution to binding arbitration while retaining court review rights; August 2007 order still allowed court review.
- In 2008 Kristine relocated with A.C.; Mark sought modification favoring him as primary residential parent; August 2008 hearing set.
- A handwritten CR 2A agreement entered at mediation in August 2008 increased Mark’s weekend time and altered midweek schedule, plus added a six-to-twelve month condition-like requirement for more time tied to Kristine’s discretionary determination.
- CR 2A agreement granted Kristine complete discretionary authority to determine Mark’s compliance with new requirements and to implement additional residential time, with arbitration as appellate option; parties agreed no further court proceedings except as provided.
- Kristine ultimately denied Mark additional residential time; arbitrator upheld Kristine’s denial; dispute then went to Pierce County Superior Court, which adopted arbitrator’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CR 2A provisions unlawfully usurp court‑review on parenting plan modifications | Coy argues CR 2A grants Kristine unilateral modification power. | Coy argues CR 2A legitimate for dispute resolution. | CR 2A provisions modifying parenting plan without court review are unenforceable. |
| Proper standard of review for arbitrator findings in parenting-plan dispute | Mark seeks de novo review. | Kristine argues substantial evidence standard. | Not reached; standard moot due to unenforceability of CR 2A. |
| Whether trial court erred in awarding Kristine attorney fees | Award unsupported by statute or facts. | Fees warranted under RCW 26.09.140 or 26.09.184(4)(d). | Fees reversed; no proper basis in record. |
| Impact of invalid CR 2A on remand and future proceedings | Court should enforce original statutory process. | Agreement can guide future arrangements if court reviews. | Future changes must be pursued under RCW 26.09.260 and reviewed by the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Hicks, 119 Wash.2d 151, 829 P.2d 1087 (1992) (1992) (court must review parenting-plan modifications; cannot delegate jurisdiction)
- Gallagher v. Sidhu, 126 Wash.App. 913, 109 P.3d 840 (2005) (2005) (stipulations cannot alter court jurisdiction over parenting matters)
- Schuster v. Schuster, 90 Wash.2d 626, 585 P.2d 130 (1978) (1978) (modifications require trial court consideration of best interests)
- In re Smith-Bartlett, 95 Wash.App. 633, 976 P.2d 173 (1999) (1999) (modifications require independent trial court inquiry)
- Schroeder v. Schroeder, 106 Wash.App. 343, 22 P.3d 1280 (2001) (2001) (trial court may delegate interpretation if review rights retained)
- Kirshenbaum v. Kirshenbaum, 84 Wash.App. 798, 929 P.2d 1204 (1997) (1997) (trial court cannot delegate modification authority without review rights)
- King v. King, 162 Wash.2d 378, 174 P.3d 659 (2007) (2007) (parenting agreements must be approved by court for effect; best interests standard applies)