In Re The Marriage Of: Alexa Ingram-cauchi v. Steven Stout
73466-1
Wash. Ct. App.Oct 31, 2016Background
- Alexa Ingram-Cauchi (mother) founded and grew iD Tech; board and business demands required her increased on-site presence in Los Gatos, CA. She sought to relocate there with her two children.
- Under a 2012 agreed parenting plan the children resided primarily with mother until a planned shift to a 50/50 schedule in 2015. Mother filed notice of intended relocation in 2014.
- Parenting evaluator Dr. Jennifer Wheeler (reports in 2012 and 2015) found both parents to be highly capable; she recommended a 50/50 residential schedule as best for the children but expressed concerns about the children’s strong emotional alignment with mother and potential marginalization of father if relocation occurred.
- Father, Steven Stout, objected; trial court denied relocation, relied heavily on Dr. Wheeler’s best-interest findings, and entered a final parenting plan aiming for near 50/50 time but restrained the move. The court also awarded attorney fees to father.
- Mother appealed, arguing the trial court ignored the Washington Child Relocation Act’s statutory presumption in favor of permitting a relocation by the parent with majority-residential time and instead applied a pure best-interests analysis. She also challenged the fee award and exclusion of board-member testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ingram‑Cauchi) | Defendant's Argument (Stout) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly applied the Relocation Act presumption | The court ignored the statutory rebuttable presumption favoring relocation by the majority-residential parent and applied a best‑interest-only analysis | The court properly weighed statutory factors and relied on expert evaluations to deny relocation | Court reversed: trial court failed to apply the statutory presumption; denial of relocation was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court improperly relied on a best‑interest analysis rather than the Relocation Act’s standard | Relocation Act shifts analysis to both child and relocating parent; best‑interest focus is incorrect | Best‑interest evidence (evaluator testimony) justified the result | Court held the trial court erred by focusing on best interests and not the presumption under RCW 26.09.520 |
| Admissibility of board member Howard Behar’s testimony (disclosure issue) | Mother sought to admit Behar to prove the board made relocation nonnegotiable; exclusion was improper without proper Burnet analysis | Trial court excluded the testimony for untimely disclosure as prejudicial | Court found the trial court did not properly apply Burnet/Keck factors before exclusion; exclusion was erroneous |
| Award of attorney fees to father under RCW 26.09.140 | Fee award lacked required findings balancing need against ability to pay; no financial declarations were filed | Father was awarded fees; court noted mother’s ability to pay | Court vacated fee award for lack of findings on financial need and ability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884 (Wash. 2004) (explains relocation presumption and that analysis focuses on both child and relocating parent)
- In re Marriage of McNaught, 189 Wn. App. 545 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (burden of production and persuasion on opposing parent to rebut presumption)
- In re Custody of Osborne, 119 Wn. App. 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003) (statutory interpretation of relocation harm requirement)
- Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (Wash. 2015) (trial courts must apply Burnet factors before excluding witness testimony)
- Jones v. City of Seattle, 179 Wn.2d 322 (Wash. 2013) (discusses when exclusion for discovery violations is appropriate)
- Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 (Wash. 1997) (factors for sanctions/excluding testimony for discovery violations)
- In re Marriage of Moody, 137 Wn.2d 979 (Wash. 1999) (fee awards in family law require balancing need and ability to pay)