In Re The Parenting & Support Of Aubrey Vaneta Johnson
48414-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Child Aubrey born 2010; parents Jennifer (mother) and Timothy (father) separated in 2014 and contested a parenting plan.
- Pretrial order provided an equal shared residential schedule; at trial both parents sought majority time and sole decision-making authority for education/health.
- GAL recommended continuing equal schedule until school, then primary placement with Jennifer due to her greater availability, but generous time for Timothy; GAL raised concerns about sexualized content on Jennifer’s fiancé Maxwell’s public social media.
- Trial evidence: both parents bonded and engaged with Aubrey; Jennifer had more flexible current schedule (not working), had been primary financial provider earlier; Timothy had periods of full-time caregiving but also employment and treatment and used helpers/babysitters.
- Trial court found parents unable to meaningfully communicate (harmful parental conduct), weighed RCW 26.09.187(3) factors, kept equal schedule until kindergarten, then awarded majority residential time and sole nonemergency education/health decision-making to Jennifer.
- Trial court declined to limit Jennifer’s residential time under RCW 26.09.191 for alleged abusive conflict or Maxwell’s pornography, finding insufficient evidence of impact on Aubrey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Timothy) | Defendant's Argument (Jennifer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion allocating majority residential time to Jennifer under RCW 26.09.187(3) | Trial court wrongly discounted Timothy’s primary-caregiver history and family/community ties; factors should favor Timothy | Jennifer more available now; RCW factors support her as primary once child starts kindergarten; both parents bonded | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports findings and weighing of RCW 26.09.187(3) factors; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court erred granting sole education and nonemergency health decision-making to Jennifer under RCW 26.09.187(2) | Timothy should have been awarded decision-making; Jennifer was responsible for communication breakdown | Both parents opposed mutual decision-making; primary residential parent should have decision-making | Affirmed: sole decision-making warranted where parents oppose mutual decision-making and Jennifer will be primary residential parent |
| Whether trial court should have limited Jennifer’s residential time for "abusive use of conflict" under RCW 26.09.191 | Jennifer’s past conduct and incidents (e.g., withholding child; prior assault charge) justify limiting her time | No history of domestic violence or abuse of conflict sufficient to trigger RCW 26.09.191 limits; both parents contributed to conflict | Affirmed: trial court reasonably found no statutory basis to limit Jennifer’s time; evidence showed mutual conflict, not disqualifying abuse |
| Whether trial court should have limited Jennifer’s time because fiancé’s pornographic social media exposed Aubrey | Timothy argued pornographic postings created risk to child and warranted limits | Jennifer and GAL testified no evidence Aubrey accessed or was impacted; postings were being removed | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding no impact on Aubrey; court permissibly declined limits (noting one unsupported boilerplate finding about child blocks) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23 (trial court has broad discretion in parenting plan decisions)
- In re Marriage of Fiorito, 112 Wn. App. 657 (unchallenged findings are verities on appeal; substantial-evidence standard)
- In re Marriage of Burrill, 113 Wn. App. 863 (conflicting evidence does not defeat substantial-evidence findings)
- In re Parentage of Schroeder, 106 Wn. App. 343 (appellate reluctance to disturb child placement because of trial court’s observation role)
- In re Parentage & Support of L.H., 198 Wn. App. 190 (trial court discretion to determine whether evidence meets RCW 26.09.191)
- Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn. App. 533 (appellate courts disregard arguments that merely incorporate trial briefing)