Jennifer Lesinski, V. Joseph Mienko, 55093-8

Parents divorced in 2013 with a parenting plan: two sons (JM, EM) live with mother (Lesinski) in Michigan during school year and spend summers with father (Mienko) in Washington.
In 2020 the parties agreed to an early transfer on August 16 so Lesinski could take a vacation; JM (13) told father he wanted to stay in Washington.
Commissioner Farmer issued an August 14 order directing both parents to facilitate JM’s return on August 16 and stating the child did not have a choice; on Aug. 16 JM refused to leave, no physical force was used, and the exchange failed (adult sister NM was present and hostile).
On Aug. 17 Mienko asked for a writ of habeas corpus (to authorize law enforcement to remove JM); after Mienko explained the writ to JM, JM agreed to go with his mother and returned that afternoon without law enforcement involvement.
Lesinski moved for contempt; a commissioner found Mienko in contempt (intentional, bad faith), ordered $100 civil penalty and $2,500 attorney fees; a judge denied revision and Mienko appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lesinski)	Defendant's Argument (Mienko)	Held
Writ of habeas corpus	Writ appropriate to enforce court order; not contested by Lesinski on appeal	Mienko cannot challenge the writ now because he requested it (invited error)	Court: invited error bars Mienko’s challenge to the writ; commissioner did not err in signing given imperfect timing
Order to show cause (reasonable cause)	Allegations and declaration established reasonable cause that Mienko withheld JM and violated orders	Once JM was returned, there was no reasonable cause to issue show-cause	Court: pleadings + Mienko’s admissions gave reasonable cause; order to show cause proper
Contempt finding and sanctions (punitive vs. remedial; purge)	Sanctions were punitive and required jury-like due process; contempt couldn’t be sanctioned after JM was returned	Sanctions were compensatory/remedial (make-up time, fees, civil penalty) and statute permits monetary relief even after compliance	Court: sanctions nonpunitive/compensatory under RCW 26.09.160; contempt finding supported by substantial evidence and monetary sanctions allowed despite return
Attorney fees on appeal	Lesinski seeks fees under RCW 26.09.140/.160	Mienko opposes	Court: discretionary denial of appellate fees after considering merits and parties’ resources; fees not awarded

Gronquist v. Department of Corrections, 196 Wn.2d 564 (2020) (permits compensatory contempt sanctions and explains difference between remedial and punitive contempt)
In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wn.2d 337 (2003) (parental obligation to overcome a child’s recalcitrance; bad-faith conduct can support contempt)
In re Pers. Restraint of King, 110 Wn.2d 793 (1988) (determinate, unconditional contempt sanctions are punitive and trigger criminal-due-process protections)
In re Estate of Muller, 197 Wn. App. 477 (2016) (invited error doctrine precludes a party from challenging relief they sought)
In re Marriage of Eklund, 143 Wn. App. 207 (2008) (substantial-evidence support for contempt where parent intentionally refused to follow parenting plan)
In re Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wn. App. 42 (2011) (standard for substantial evidence review in family-law contempt matters)