In Re The Marriage Of: Irlanda Diaz-rodriguez, V. Jose Marcelo Tenesaca, 81784-1

Background:

Tenesaca Arpi (father) and Irlanda Rodriguez Diaz (mother) married in 2007, separated 2018; two children.
Mother filed for dissolution and alleged the father had a history of domestic violence; she had a pending DVPO that was later voluntarily dismissed by agreement.
Trial occurred March 11, 2020; mother testified (pro se, with translator) she is disabled and receives Social Security disability; father sought 50/50 parenting time and downward deviation of child support.
Trial court found the mother credible, found a history of domestic violence, awarded primary residential time to mother (father alternating weekends and one week in summer), ordered father to complete a domestic violence evaluation/treatment, and allowed mother to seek modification if father failed to comply without separately proving a substantial change.
Court awarded father maintenance $1,500/month through April 2022 and ordered child support of $858.34/month through April 2022, increasing to $1,282.90/month thereafter (reflecting termination of maintenance). Father’s motion for reconsideration was denied and he appealed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tenesaca Arpi)	Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez / Trial Court)	Held
Whether mother's domestic-violence claims were precluded and findings lack substantial evidence	DVPO dismissal with prejudice bars relitigation (claim/issue preclusion, judicial estoppel); mother not credible	Dismissal was by agreement, not merits; credibility is for the trier of fact	Rejected preclusion/estoppel; credibility not reviewed; substantial evidence supports findings
Legality of child support increase after maintenance ends	Increase impermissible; father objects to higher post-April 2022 support	Maintenance counts as income to recipient and deduction for payor when computing support	Affirmed: contemporaneous maintenance properly considered, so support may increase when maintenance stops
Whether court erred by not considering income of other adults in mother's household / downward deviation	Mother failed to disclose household adults' income; downward deviation warranted	Only parents' incomes are used for basic support; other adults' income not automatically a deviation factor; no evidence earnings were available to mother	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding household adults' income
Whether residential schedule and restrictions served children's best interests; need for RCW 26.09.191 restrictions on mother	Parenting plan not in children's best interest; trial court applied improper presumption; mother should face restrictions	Limitations based on father's domestic-violence history; no presumption used; father failed to preserve .191 argument	Affirmed: limitations tied to domestic-violence findings; no reversible error
Validity of parenting-plan clause allowing modification petition if father fails to comply with DV evaluation/treatment	Clause lets mother bypass statutory adequate-cause/substantial-change requirement	Clause simply signals that noncompliance may constitute a substantial change to support a later petition	Affirmed: clause does not circumvent statute; noncompliance can be treated as substantial change
Evidentiary errors and judicial bias	Judge testified, allowed inadmissible testimony/hearsay, and was biased against father	No record evidence judge testified; father failed to timely object on evidentiary grounds; adverse rulings ≠ bias	Affirmed: evidentiary claims not preserved; no showing of judicial bias

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Condie, 15 Wn. App. 2d 449, 475 P.3d 993 (contemporaneously ordered maintenance is included in income for child support calculations)
In re Marriage of Snider, 6 Wn. App. 2d 310, 430 P.3d 726 (adequate-cause/substantial-change requirement for major parenting-plan modification)
In re Marriage of Buchanan, 150 Wn. App. 730, 207 P.3d 478 (standard of review for dissolution issues)
In re Marriage of Lee, 176 Wn. App. 678, 310 P.3d 845 (appellate review principles for discretionary family-law rulings)
In re Parentage of T.W.J., 193 Wn. App. 1, 367 P.3d 607 (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
Ullery v. Fulleton, 162 Wn. App. 596, 256 P.3d 406 (elements and threshold for claim/issue preclusion)
Cunningham v. Reliable Concrete Pumping, Inc., 126 Wn. App. 222, 108 P.3d 147 (judicial estoppel factors)
In re Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wn.2d 647, 101 P.3d 1 (unfavorable rulings alone generally do not establish judicial bias)