In Re The Marriage Of: Denise M. Barry, And William C. Parsons
75518-8
Wash. Ct. App.Nov 13, 2017Background
- Parents (Denise Barry and William Parsons) had a 50/50 parenting plan for daughter Greta established in 2011; exchanges were frequent (two days each parent, alternating weekends).
- Repeated disputes and conduct problems: Parsons was often late or absent for exchanges, failed to provide basic needs, missed extracurriculars/therapy appointments, changed the child’s school address contrary to court orders, and was found in contempt for late child support.
- Parsons filed a motion to modify the parenting plan (seeking schedule change and reduced support); Barry responded, stipulated to adequate cause, and filed a competing proposed plan requesting sole decision-making and limits on Parsons’ time based on alleged domestic violence and conflict.
- A parenting evaluator recommended continued 50/50 time but with week-long blocks and parallel parenting; the court rejected that plan and adopted Barry’s proposal, reducing Parsons to biweekly weekends/holiday time and granting Barry sole decision-making for major issues.
- Trial court found a substantial change in circumstances and that restricting Parsons’ residential time was necessary to protect the child under RCW 26.09.191; Parsons appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parsons) | Defendant's Argument (Barry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court authority to modify when movant is the father | Parsons argued the court lacked authority to alter the parenting plan in favor of Barry because he filed the motion | Barry argued both parties agreed adequate cause existed and she filed a responsive proposed plan, so the court could modify under RCW 26.09.260 | Court: Modification authority exists; parties stipulated adequate cause and statutory grounds (including agreement to modify) were satisfied, so court had authority to adopt Barry’s plan |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in reducing Parsons’ residential time | Parsons argued the reduction was unreasonable and disruptive; he claimed both parents contributed to conflict | Barry argued Parsons’ conduct adversely affected Greta (lateness, missed school, placing child in conflict, failure to provide basic needs), supporting restriction under RCW 26.09.191 | Court: No abuse of discretion; findings supported by substantial evidence warranted limiting Parsons’ time to protect child’s best interests |
| Granting sole decision-making to mother | Parsons contended joint decision-making could continue; challenged sole authority for Barry | Barry argued Parsons repeatedly acted unilaterally (e.g., enrolling child at new school, changing address) and failed to inform mother, showing he should not retain major-decision authority | Court: Affirmed sole decision-making for Barry as supported by evidence of Parsons’ unilateral conduct and the child’s best interest |
| Request for appellate attorney fees | Parsons sought reversal; Barry sought fees under RAP 18.9 claiming procedural misuse | Parsons argued his appeal was not frivolous; procedural errors were not egregious | Court: Denied fee request; Parsons’ appeal was not frivolous despite losing on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Shryock, 76 Wn. App. 848 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995) (trial court lacks authority to modify parenting plan when none of statutory grounds for modification apply)
- Matter of Marriage of Leslie, 112 Wn.2d 612 (Wash. 1989) (court cannot grant relief beyond what was pleaded without notice)
- In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (Wash. 1997) (parenting-plan rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Chandola, 180 Wn.2d 632 (Wash. 2014) (appellate courts treat trial court’s findings as verities if supported by substantial evidence)
- In re Marriage of Adler, 131 Wn. App. 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (parties may waive or stipulate to adequate-cause threshold for modification hearings)
- In re Marriage of McDole, 122 Wn.2d 604 (Wash. 1993) (broad trial-court discretion in child-welfare matters)