Kylene Daligcon v. Sean Kirk-daligcon, 75955-8

Sean and Kylene Daligcon divorced in 2012; parenting plan named Kylene residential parent and granted Sean every-other-weekend and specified holiday/break time; parents shared decision-making.
Since divorce, Kylene lived with partner Dylan Edgington who Sean later accused of exhibiting anger and racist remarks; Sean previously signed a 2015 declaration praising Dylan as a committed caretaker.
In April 2016 Kylene filed notice to relocate to Okanogan; Sean objected and concurrently filed a petition to modify the 2012 parenting plan alleging a substantial change in circumstances (Dylan’s conduct) and requested primary residential time and sole decision-making.
Kylene’s relocation ultimately did not occur; the court denied her temporary relocation request and then denied Sean’s motion to show adequate cause to modify the parenting plan; the superior court denied revision and adopted the commissioner’s findings.
Commissioner and superior court concluded Sean’s affidavits/evidence did not establish a substantial change in circumstances, no detrimental environment to the children, and the proposed changes did not qualify as a permissible minor modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sean established adequate cause to pursue a major modification under RCW 26.09.260 (substantial change & best interests)	Dylan’s increasing anger, racially charged comments, and conduct create a detrimental environment and a substantial change warranting primary residential custody and sole decision-making	Kylene argued the evidence does not show a substantial change or detriment; children have lived primarily with her since dissolution and stability favors finality	Court held Sean failed to show adequate cause for major modification; commissioner and superior court did not abuse discretion
Whether the proposed changes qualify as a minor modification under RCW 26.09.260(5)	Proposed residential schedule (children primarily with Sean) is a permissible minor adjustment	The proposed plan changes the child’s primary residence and exceeds minor-modification limits	Court held the proposed plan did not meet statutory requirements for a minor modification; denial affirmed

State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106 (discusses de novo review of commissioner findings on revision)
Maldonado v. Maldonado, 197 Wn. App. 779 (procedural review of commissioner decision adoption)
In re Parentage of Jannot, 149 Wn.2d 123 (standard: review for abuse of discretion in adequate-cause determinations)
In re Marriage of McDevitt, 181 Wn. App. 765 (statutory framework for modification and substantial change requirement)
In re Marriage of McDole, 122 Wn.2d 604 (presumption against modification; emphasis on finality)
In re Marriage of Pape, 139 Wn.2d 694 (child’s interest in stability and finality)
In re Custody of E.A.T.W., 168 Wn.2d 335 (adequate cause requires showing on each element to be proved)
In re Marriage of Parker, 135 Wn. App. 465 (petitioner bears burden to show substantial change to establish adequate cause)