Katelynn Skylar Roberts, V. Chad Michael Roberts
81623-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2021Background
- Chad and Katelynn Roberts divorced in 2017; they have two children. At divorce Chad’s net monthly income was $9,836; Katelynn was imputed $1,682 as a stay‑at‑home parent.
- Parties agreed in mediation to child support of $2,413/month (an upward deviation to allow Katelynn not to work until youngest in school).
- Spousal maintenance of $2,412.50/month was ordered until the youngest began school; maintenance then steps down and the decree stated child support shall not be recomputed until maintenance reaches zero.
- Chad was fired from his refinery job in March 2019 due to alcoholism, obtained lower‑paying work, made partial payments, withdrew from his 401(k), and lived with a partner who pays many household expenses and benefits for him and the children.
- Superior court found a substantial change for maintenance and reduced/terminated maintenance over time, found Chad in contempt for arrears, but denied Chad’s motion to adjust child support (noting the decree provision and other factors); Chad appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Katelynn's Argument | Chad's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Chad’s motion to adjust child support after his income dropped | Adjustment is discretionary; court properly weighed the agreed order, partner’s financial support, and maintenance reductions | Income drop is a substantial change; current support exceeds Chad’s take‑home pay and should be reduced | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered relevant factors and could enforce the obligation despite reduced income |
| Whether former RCW 26.09.170(7)(a) requires automatic adjustment after income change | The statute uses “may be adjusted”; trial court has discretion not to adjust | Chad contends change in income qualifies for adjustment under the statute | Held: Adjustment is discretionary, not automatic; court permissibly declined to adjust |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded | Seeks fees under RAP 18.1 and RCW 26.09.140 due to meritless appeal and financial disparity | Claims extreme hardship and that issues are meritorious; counsel is pro bono | Fees awarded in Katelynn’s favor; amount to be set by a commissioner |
Key Cases Cited
- Choate v. Choate, 143 Wn. App. 235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for child support modification motions)
- In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (Wash. 1997) (standard for abuse of discretion and appellate deference in domestic relations)
- In re Parentage of Jannot, 149 Wn.2d 123 (Wash. 2003) (trial judge best positioned to weigh fact‑based domestic relations evidence)
- In re Marriage of Fiorito, 112 Wn. App. 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (appellate court won’t substitute judgment where trial court considered relevant factors)
- In re Marriage of Mattson, 95 Wn. App. 592 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (purpose of child support: prevent harmful reduction in children’s standard of living)
- In re Marriage of Scanlon and Witrak, 109 Wn. App. 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (distinction between full modification and narrower adjustment actions)
- In re Marriage of Blickenstaff, 71 Wn. App. 489 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993) (court may enforce support where obligor has other means despite lack of income)
- In re Marriage of Mansour, 126 Wn. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (factors for awarding appellate fees: arguable merit and parties’ finances)
- In re Marriage of Griffin, 114 Wn.2d 772 (Wash. 1990) (framework for awarding attorneys’ fees on appeal in family law matters)