In re the Marriage of Katare, 175 Wash. 2d 23

This case involves a parenting plan with foreign travel restrictions based on alleged threats to abduct the children to India; Katare denies making threats.
The trial court imposed travel restrictions under RCW 26.09.191(3) despite initial questions about the statutory basis and risk level.
Expert Berry testified on abduction risk factors; his testimony was challenged as improper under Frye, but the court admitted it for purposes of understanding literature on risk.
The Court of Appeals held that the travel restrictions were supported by substantial evidence but that Berry’s testimony was an abuse of discretion; it affirmed travel restrictions but remanded on admissibility.
The Supreme Court upheld the travel restrictions and admission of Berry’s testimony, agreeing the restrictions were supported by substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the foreign travel restrictions justified under RCW 26.09.191(3)?	Katare argues insufficient nexus; no serious risk shown.	Katare's conduct shows risk of abduction; restrictions necessary.	Yes; restrictions supported by substantial evidence under RCW 26.09.191(3)(g).
Was Berry’s risk-factor testimony admissible under Frye and ER 702?	Berry unqualified; risk-factor testimony is inadmissible profile evidence.	Berry qualified by experience; testimony helpful for risk assessment.	Not an abuse; Berry’s testimony admissible.
Did the travel restrictions violate constitutional rights?	Restrictions infringe fundamental travel/parenting rights.	No fundamental right at issue; restrictions serve child’s best interests.	No constitutional violation; limits permissible when in child’s best interests.
Should attorney fees be awarded to Lynette?	Brajesh’s conduct constitutes intransigence justifying fees.	No intransigence; fees not warranted.	No attorney fees awarded.

In re Marriage of Wicklund, 84 Wn. App. 763 (1996) (restrictions must be tied to endangerment of child’s health; not mere adjustment problems)
In re Marriage of Watson, 132 Wn. App. 222 (2006) (unfounded allegations cannot support visitation restrictions; require substantial evidence)
In re Detention of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724 (2003) (risk assessments admissible when probative value high for dangerousness)
In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (1997) (abuse of discretion standard for parenting plans; findings must be supported by substantial evidence)
In re Marriage of Burrill, 113 Wn. App. 863 (2002) (evidence of actual harm not required; danger to child can justify restrictions)