In Re The Marriage Of: Steven Matthew Kelly, App. And Natali Kae Schutz, Res., 75411-4

Parents (Schutz — mother; Kelly — father) share custody under an agreed parenting plan with phased residential time; father was in Phase II at the time.
Section 3.4 provides that "other school breaks" (including spring break) children reside with mother except as provided by section 3.1 when father is in Phase I/II; in Phase III/IV parents alternate breaks by odd/even years if they cannot agree.
Mother emailed Jan 21 that she planned a two-week spring-break trip (Mar 30–Apr 14) and offered make-up time; father replied Jan 25 that the trip didn’t follow the plan; mother purchased tickets and left with the children.
Father moved for contempt; a commissioner found mother in contempt for a bad-faith violation; on revision the superior court set aside contempt, finding the plan ambiguous, an established practice of allowing mother vacations, father’s untimely response, and father’s refusal to mediate.
Court of Appeals reviewed the superior court ruling and concluded the findings lacked substantial evidence; it held section 3.4 unambiguous, mother’s conduct was a bad-faith violation, reversed and vacated the revision order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kelly)	Defendant's Argument (Schutz)	Held
Whether mother committed contempt by taking children on spring-break vacation in Phase II	Mother violated the parenting plan and acted in bad faith; contempt appropriate	Mother sought agreement and offered make-up time; did not act in bad faith	Reversed revision: mother’s trip violated the plan in bad faith and contempt finding by commissioner was supported
Whether §3.4 is ambiguous	§3.4 clearly defers to §3.1 for Phase II; no ambiguity	§3.4 is contradictory/confusing and reasonably read to allow mother the trip	§3.4 unambiguous; trial court erred to find confusion
Whether father’s delayed reply and refusal to mediate excuse mother’s conduct	Father’s delay and refusal to mediate are not reasonable excuses for violating the plan	Father didn’t timely respond and refused mediation as required; mother’s notice and mediation offer support lack of bad faith	Four-day reply delay and mediation refusal do not excuse noncompliance; trial court abused discretion relying on those reasons
Whether revision hearing violated appearance of fairness	(claimed) judge’s relationship with mother’s former attorney required disclosure and recusal	Judge disclosed relationship; parties knowingly proceeded	Court of Appeals rejected appearance-of-fairness claim; disclosure was sufficient and parties consented

In re Marriage of James, 79 Wn. App. 436, 903 P.2d 470 (trial court’s contempt review and abuse-of-discretion principles)
In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wn.2d 337, 77 P.3d 1174 (burden and standards for proving reasonable excuse and ability to comply in parenting-plan contempt)
In re Marriage of Humphreys, 79 Wn. App. 596, 903 P.2d 1012 (strict construction of orders alleged to be violated in contempt proceedings)
State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106, 86 P.3d 132 (standard of review for superior court revision of commissioner’s findings)
In re Marriage of Johnson, 107 Wn. App. 500, 27 P.3d 654 (factors for appellate award of attorney fees in family-law appeals)