In Re: Parenting Of M.o., Wairimu Kiambuthi v. Toll Obuon
75563-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Parents Toll Obuon and Wairimu Kiambuthi share an 11‑year‑old daughter, M.O.; parties divorced in 2014 with a parenting plan that permitted Kiambuthi to reside in Nairobi but required certain U.S. visits.
- Kiambuthi remarried and sought to relocate with M.O. from Seattle to Snohomish County (near Bothell); she argued the move offered a better public school (highly capable program) and a more stable home base.
- Obuon objected, sought a 50/50 parenting plan, and emphasized M.O.’s existing private school and his desire that she remain in Seattle.
- Trial court conducted a three‑day bench trial, found both parents care for M.O., and applied the Child Relocation Act (RCW 26.09.405–.560) factors, concluding relocation was permissible because disruption to M.O. would be greater if she did not live with the primary caregiver and Snohomish offered better educational stability.
- The court granted relocation and amended the parenting plan to allow M.O. to live with Kiambuthi during the school week and visit Obuon alternate weekends; Obuon appealed the relocation order (but did not properly designate the amended parenting plan in the notice of appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Kiambuthi's Argument | Obuon’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court considered each RCW 26.09.520 relocation factor before granting relocation | Court properly considered each statutory factor; relocation benefits M.O.’s education and stability | Court failed to consider all statutory factors and abused its discretion | Affirmed — court addressed each RCW 26.09.520 factor and substantial evidence supports findings |
| Whether the amended parenting plan is reviewable on appeal | (implicit) parenting plan amendment follows from relocation and is part of the order | Challenges the amended parenting plan | Not reviewed — appellant did not designate the amended plan in the notice of appeal and it did not prejudicially affect the designated relocation order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (Wash. 2004) (trial courts must consider each RCW 26.09.520 relocation factor)
- Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells Prairie Cmty. Council, 146 Wn.2d 370 (Wash. 2002) (when an undesignated order prejudicially affects a designated decision, appellate review may include it)
- In re Marriage of McNaught, 189 Wn. App. 545 (Wash. Ct. App.) (trial court must enter findings or have substantial evidence and oral articulation reflecting consideration of each relocation factor)