Marycruz Villegas, V. Jonathan Ada, 84193-9

Background

Parents dissolved marriage in 2020; agreed parenting plan gave primary residence of the child (Z.A.) to the mother, with alternate-weekend visitation for the father; child support set at $100/month by deviation and parties shared certain expenses.
Mother gave statutory notice in Aug 2021 of intent to relocate with Z.A. to Los Angeles; father objected and sought to keep child in Washington with expanded time for himself during school breaks.
After temporary orders and a three-day trial (May 2022) when Z.A. was six, the trial court permitted the relocation but structured a parenting plan that awards the father concentrated residential time during summer and most school holidays (including every Thanksgiving and winter break in Washington; alternating Christmas Eve overnight), and apportions travel costs equally.
Trial court denied the mother’s request to modify child support for three independent reasons: relocation notice alone did not provide statutory basis; no properly noticed petition to change support; and the evidence did not justify modification in mother’s favor.
Trial court made unchallenged findings that Z.A. has equally strong, stable relationships with both parents and significant extended-family ties in Washington; mother’s income had increased since 2020 while father’s income at trial (including temporary unemployment benefits) was roughly comparable to 2020.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Residential schedule / holiday allocation after relocation	Court’s requirement that most school holidays be spent with father undermines mother–child relationship and improperly restricts mother’s time (esp. brief alternate-year Christmas overnight)	Concentrating father’s residential time during school breaks maximizes meaningful contact with father and extended family in Washington	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; schedule supports best interests and maximizes non‑relocating parent’s time
Relocation itself (permission to move child to California)	Mother sought relocation to LA for employment/partner transfer	Father objected, citing child’s strong Washington ties and inability to relocate	Court allowed relocation (mother permitted to move) but adjusted residential time to protect father’s contact; mother does not prevail on holiday-allocation challenge
Child support modification	Mother argued she properly sought modification via amended petition and produced worksheets showing higher income and claim that underlying $100 deviation was premised on promises of tangible support	Father asked court to keep 2020 order; evidence showed father’s income near 2020 level and mother’s income rose; documentary evidence did not support claimed expenses or verbal side‑agreements	Court affirmed denial: modification not warranted—procedural and substantive grounds; no abuse of discretion
Attorneys’ fees on appeal	Mother sought fees based on alleged briefing defects	Father sought fees under RCW 26.09.140 or RCW 4.84.185	Both requests denied: father failed to submit financial declaration; appeal not frivolous; frivolous‑suit statute inapplicable on appeal

Key Cases Cited

In re Parentage of Jannot, 149 Wn.2d 123 (trial judge best positioned to weigh affidavits and evidence)
In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23 (trial court has broad discretion in structuring a parenting plan)
In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wn.2d 114 (standard: review for abuse of discretion)
In re Marriage of Knight, 75 Wn. App. 721 (unchallenged trial findings are verities on appeal)
In re Marriage of McNaught, 189 Wn. App. 545 (appellate court will not reweigh evidence)
Choate v. Choate, 143 Wn. App. 235 (child support modification reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Marriage of Schumacher, 100 Wn. App. 208 (courts have equitable power to modify support)
Pippins v. Jankelson, 110 Wn.2d 475 (substantial‑change standard and its presumption when prior order was contested)
Advocates for Responsible Dev. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 170 Wn.2d 577 (definition of frivolous appeal)