Marriage Of John Patrick Ingersoll, V Tomi Lee Ingersoll
49229-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Marriage of John and Tomi Ingersoll with two children; marriage deteriorated by 2012 with frequent violent arguments and heavy alcohol use by John.
- Tomi fled with the children, lived near relatives in Alaska, and filed for dissolution; Grant County entered a temporary parenting plan naming Tomi primary residential parent.
- Two guardian ad litem (GAL) evaluations occurred (Grant and Pierce Counties); GALs noted credibility issues and concerns about John’s anger and alcohol use.
- After a bench trial in Pierce County, the trial court found John had a long-term alcohol problem that interfered with his parenting and ordered limitations (abstinence, random UA, counseling), with suspension of parenting time for noncompliance.
- The court also found neither parent had a domestic-violence problem requiring mandatory limitations and designated Tomi as primary residential parent.
- John appealed, arguing (1) the court needed a more particularized harm finding before imposing restrictions under RCW 26.09.191(3)(c), (2) lack of substantial evidence of impairment, (3) Tomi’s conduct amounted to domestic violence, and (4) the court improperly relied on the temporary parenting plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (John) | Defendant's Argument (Tomi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 26.09.191(3)(c) requires a particularized finding of specific harm to the child before imposing restrictions | Trial court’s boilerplate finding was insufficient; Chandola requires a detailed harm finding for any subsection | Chandola’s heightened-harm requirement applies only to the catchall subsection (3)(g); (3)(c) by its terms already identifies harmful conduct | Court held no particularized harm finding required for (3)(c); a finding tracking statutory language suffices |
| Whether substantial evidence supported finding that John’s alcohol problem interfered with parenting | Evidence insufficient; some witnesses saw no risk | Testimony that John drank heavily, yelled, spanked children; GAL and child statements showed fear and impaired parenting | Court held substantial evidence supported the (3)(c) finding |
| Whether Tomi engaged in a history of domestic violence requiring mandatory limits under RCW 26.09.191(2)(a)(iii) | Tomi admitted threatening with a knife and other aggressive acts, so domestic-violence finding required | Tomi’s testimony and context (self-defense, suicidal threat, denials) undercut finding of fear of imminent harm | Court held substantial evidence supported trial court’s finding that Tomi did not have a history of domestic violence |
| Whether the trial court impermissibly relied on the temporary parenting plan when naming primary residential parent | Court improperly based permanent placement on temporary plan | Trial court tied designation to (3)(c) limitation on John and did not apply a presumption from the temporary plan | Court held no improper reliance on the temporary plan; designation was supported by limitations and evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23 (guides parenting-plan objectives and statutory framework)
- In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wn.2d 114 (standard of review: abuse of discretion; findings are verities if supported by substantial evidence)
- In re Marriage of Chandola, 180 Wn.2d 632 (held catchall subsection (3)(g) requires particularized finding of risk of relatively severe harm)
- In re Marriage of Underwood, 181 Wn. App. 608 (clarified limited circumstance requiring detailed findings when child’s choice alone is based solely on RCW 26.09.191(3) factors)
- In re Marriage of Kovacs, 121 Wn.2d 795 (temporary parenting plan cannot create a presumption in permanent plan)