Natalie Khawam v. Grayson P. Wolfe
2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 16
| D.C. | 2014Background
- Khawam and Wolfe are divorcing; custody and visitation were decided; Khawam appeals all four orders.
- Trial court awarded Wolfe sole custody with supervised visitation for Khawam and ordered Khawam to report employment changes.
- Divorce decree required Khawam to report new employment; court denied Khawam’s motion to modify custody.
- Consolidated custody and divorce proceedings; Florida and D.C. actions involved; jurisdiction contested.
- Appellant challenges jurisdiction, modification of custody, reporting obligations, and attorney’s-fees award; appellate remand on modification and dismissal of fees for lack of final order.
- Court affirm custody/initial visitation and divorce decree; remand on Khawam’s motion to modify custody; dismiss fee appeal for lack of final order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DC UCCJEA granted jurisdiction | Khawam contends lack of jurisdiction | Wolfe argues proper jurisdiction | Court correctly exercised jurisdiction |
| Whether evidence of domestic violence was proven | Khawam’s allegations supported by testimony | Court found allegations insufficient | Court upheld lack of proven domestic-violence acts |
| Whether trial court improperly denied modification of custody | Court should modify custody; more evidence needed | No basis for modification; discretion proper | Remand for evidentiary consideration on modification |
| Whether visitation restrictions were an abuse of discretion | Visitation too limited/unsupervised | Restrictions were in child’s best interests | No clear abuse; original visitation affirmed (subject to remand on modification) |
| Whether the attorney’s-fees order was final | Appeal should address fee award | Order not final; interlocutory | Appeal dismissed for lack of final order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.R., 33 A.3d 397 (D.C. 2011) (jurisdiction under UCCJEA analyzed; de novo review assumption)
- In re B.B.R., 566 A.2d 1038 (D.C. 1989) (significant connection/substantial evidence under UCCJEA)
- Carl v. Tirado, 945 A.2d 1208 (D.C. 2008) (post-petition considerations in jurisdictional analysis)
- Hutchins v. Compton, 917 A.2d 680 (D.C. 2007) (deference to custody-evaluator testimony; manifest abuse standard)