In re the Marriage of: Sareena Malhi and Andy K.R. Prasad
34831-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Former spouses Dr. Andy Prasad (father) and Dr. Sareena Malhi (mother) had a 2015 Washington dissolution with an unusually detailed parenting plan addressing decision-making, communication, anti-disparagement, promotion of parental affection, and prohibition on discussing residential arrangements with the children.
- Malhi and the children moved to Davis, California in 2013; Prasad later moved to Davis as well, creating proximity that undermined the parenting-plan expectations for long-distance parenting.
- After a lengthy summer visit with Prasad, the children returned to Malhi and expressed changed attitudes and questions about living arrangements; Malhi alleged Prasad had coached or alienated the children and filed a contempt motion alleging 10 specific parenting-plan violations.
- The Chelan County Superior Court found Prasad committed five violations (multiple provisions including day-to-day and major decision communication limits, anti-disparagement, promotion of affection, and prohibition on discussing residential schedule), held him in contempt, ordered a $2,500 civil sanction ($500 per violation), a psychological exam, and barred further requests for additional visits pending venue change to California.
- Prasad appealed the contempt findings and the sanction, arguing lack of supporting evidence and that the sanction was punitive and improperly authorized for non-residential-plan violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Malhi) | Defendant's Argument (Prasad) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prasad willfully violated parenting-plan provisions (contempt) | Malhi: Evidence (texts, emails, children’s behavior) shows intentional violations of communication, medical questioning limits, anti-disparagement, failure to foster affection, and discussing residential schedule with children | Prasad: Denied wrongdoing; asserted lack of direct evidence and contended circumstantial evidence insufficient | Court: Substantial evidence (including texts/emails and circumstantial evidence of coaching/alienation) supported intentional violations; contempt findings affirmed |
| Whether circumstantial evidence can support contempt findings | Malhi: Circumstantial evidence (children’s statements, behavior changes, communications) establishes violations | Prasad: Argued absence of direct proof and contested inferences | Court: Circumstantial evidence is admissible and can be as probative as direct evidence; findings upheld |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in making factual findings and credibility determinations | Malhi: Trial court appropriately weighed evidence and credibility | Prasad: Challenged factual findings and asserted appellate court should re-weigh evidence | Court: Appellate court defers to trial court on credibility/factfinding; no abuse of discretion found |
| Whether RCW 26.09.160(2)(b)(iii) civil penalty authority is limited to violations of residential provisions | Malhi: Statute authorizes mandatory civil penalty for parenting-plan violations | Prasad: Argued statutory language limits mandatory civil penalties to only residential-provision violations, so sanctions here were improper/punitive | Court: Statute applies to the parenting-plan order that establishes residential provisions broadly; mandatory civil penalties apply to violations of any parenting-plan provisions; $2,500 sanction lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of James, 79 Wn. App. 436 (bad-faith or intentional misconduct standard for contempt under parenting-plan statute)
- In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wn.2d 337 (appellate review: factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
- Rogers Potato Serv., LLC v. Countrywide Potato, LLC, 152 Wn.2d 387 (circumstantial evidence can be as persuasive as direct evidence)
- In re Marriage of Eklund, 143 Wn. App. 207 (mandatory sanctions under RCW 26.09.160 applied to non-residential parenting-plan provision violations)
- In re Marriage of Davisson, 131 Wn. App. 220 (parenting-plan contempt and mandatory sanctions applied for violating joint decision-making provision)