In Re The Parentage Of: T.j. And I.j. Andrea Anthony, Res. And Awan Johnson, App.
75718-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- Andrea Anthony and Awan Johnson are parents of two minor children (T.J. and I.J.); Johnson also has an older child (G.R.).
- After the relationship ended, the parties entered an agreed parenting plan with shared decision-making and limited/responsive residential time for Johnson tied to conditions.
- Following increases in T.J.’s aggressive and sexualized behavior (potentially triggered by interactions with G.R.), Anthony petitioned to modify the parenting plan because Johnson would not cooperate in addressing the problems.
- At trial the court found domestic violence, refusal to perform parenting functions by Johnson, and lack of emotional ties between Johnson and the children; it substantially restricted Johnson’s residential time to supervised, phased visits, shifted decision-making to Anthony, and imposed therapeutic requirements and separation of the children from G.R.
- Johnson appealed, challenging (1) the court’s jurisdiction/authority to order major modifications beyond what Anthony pleaded and (2) the admission of expert testimony from Dr. Gary Wieder that relied on Dr. Hedrick’s forensic evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Anthony) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's authority to order major modifications to parenting plan | Petition pleaded statutory grounds for major and minor modifications (RCW 26.09.260(1),(2),(4),(5),(10)); notice given | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant major changes beyond the specific minor relief pleaded; relief beyond complaint violates due process | Court had authority: petition provided notice of major and alternative pleadings; modifications supported by statutory grounds and findings; affirmed |
| Whether trial court could reduce nonresidential rights without showing RCW 26.09.260(2) circumstances | Reduction appropriate under RCW 26.09.260(4) and (10) given findings (refusal to parent, neglect, adverse conduct) | Reduction improper absent required statutory showing | Court may reduce contact under RCW 26.09.260(4) and adjust nonresidential provisions under (10); findings supported reduction |
| Admissibility of Dr. Wieder’s testimony based on review of Dr. Hedrick’s evaluation | Evaluation was court-ordered and signed informed-consent advised no confidentiality; reviewer testimony permissible | Disclosure/testimony barred by health-information statutes/regulations (Uniform Health Care Info Act, WAC, HIPAA) without written patient authorization | Trial court did not abuse discretion: forensic evaluation not confidential health-care record, consent/court order sufficed; any error was harmless given extensive uncontested findings |
| Award of appellate attorney fees | Anthony requested fees and presented financial need | Johnson asserted no need for award to him | Anthony awarded appellate fees pursuant to RCW 26.09.140, subject to RAP 18.1(d); Johnson not awarded fees |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Leslie, 112 Wn.2d 612 (Wash. 1989) (court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief beyond what is sought in the complaint without notice)
- In re Marriage of Shryock, 76 Wn. App. 848 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995) (trial court abused discretion by adopting modifications when it had found no statutory basis for modification)
- In re Marriage of McDole, 122 Wn.2d 604 (Wash. 1993) (standards for appellate review of parenting-plan modifications)
- Choi v. Sung, 154 Wn. App. 303 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (broad judicial discretion in child welfare matters)
- Darkenwald v. Employment Security Dep’t, 183 Wn.2d 237 (Wash. 2015) (principles of statutory construction and interpretation)
- Christian v. Tohmeh, 191 Wn. App. 709 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (discussion of evidentiary disclosure issues in family-law evaluations)