In Re The Parenting And Support Of: D.r. Nathan Brasfield, App. And Lauren Rainbow, Res., 74018-1

Background

Brasfield and Rainbow separated in 2010; they share one child, Danny; they initially had a non‑support parenting arrangement with Rainbow using a jointly owned car.
May 2012 child support was ordered; June 2012 they adopted a temporary, formal parenting plan with shared parental responsibility.
April 2014 Rainbow sought a DVPO and modification to parenting plan after FBI-related investigation into Brasfield; DVPO entered June 3, 2014; Brasfield moved for summary judgment challenging domestic violence findings.
December 2014 GAL appointed to represent Danny; March 2015 Brasfield pled guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 48 months.
May 2015 Rainbow renewed the DVPO and the trial court consolidated the petitions for trial; trial spanned five days with extensive testimony; the court issued a permanent parenting plan restricting Brasfield’s visitation during incarceration and authorizing supervised visits thereafter, and renewed the DVPO through 2020; Brasfield appeals all four orders and the attorney fee denial.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings, finding no reversible error and upholding the restraints on parenting time and the DVPO renewal

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Genzale’s expert testimony	Brasfield argues Genzale was not qualified and based her opinion on insufficient facts.	Rainbow/Brasfield maintain admissibility under ER 702 with a proper foundation and sufficient data to diagnose.	No reversible error; trial court qualified the expert; diagnosis based on 10–12 sessions; admissibility within broad discretion.
Reliance on hearsay evidence in findings	Brasfield contends some findings rely on inadmissible hearsay (FBI and GAL reports).	GAL can rely on hearsay for recommendations, but inadmissible hearsay cannot be used as truth.	Hearsay reliance did not affect outcome; substantial evidence supports other findings; no reversible error.
Sufficiency of evidence for domestic violence and RCW 26.09.191 restrictions	Brasfield claims insufficient evidence to impose restrictions based on domestic violence.	Evidence shows a history of threats and fear; proper statutory framework supports restrictions.	Substantial evidence supports findings of domestic violence and the resulting RCW 26.09.191 restrictions.
DVPO extension duration and its relation to parenting plan	Renewal DVPO mirrors parenting-plan restrictions; challenge to validity of renewal duration.	Renewals have no fixed duration limit; renewal can be followed by permanent order; not error here.	DVPO renewal proper; duration not bounded by one year for renewals.
Consolidation of parenting plan and DVPO hearings due process	Brasfield argues consolidation caused due process violation by reliance on hearsay.	Consolidation permitted by statute; no manifest constitutional error shown; Mathews factors not satisfied.	No manifest due process error; no appellate basis to overturn consolidation.

Key Cases Cited

In re Guardianship of Stamm, 121 Wn. App. 830 (2004) ( GAL may rely on hearsay for recommendations but not to introduce inadmissible hearsay.)
In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23 (2012) (expert testimony admissibility and scope of ER 702; deference to trial court's ruling.)
Kovacs, 121 Wn.2d 795 (1993) (standard for abuse of discretion in parenting plan determinations.)
Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (1997) (framework for evaluating parenting plan restrictions and substantial evidence review.)
Caven, 136 Wn.2d 800 (1998) (limits on parenting plan restrictions based on evidence; not mere accusations.)
Maq ers, 164 Wn.2d 174 (2008) (standard for reviewing trial court evidentiary rulings.)
Stewart, 133 Wn. App. 545 (2006) (DVPO issuance separate from parenting-plan restrictions; consolidation context.)
Fernando v. Nieswandt, 87 Wn. App. 103 (1997) ( GAL credibility and weight of evidence; appellate review of factual determinations.)