Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

M.H.P. was the son of Leslie Bramlett and Paul Parvin. He was less than two years old when dependency proceedings commenced. M.H.P.'s parents experienced repeated episodes of mental illness, substance abuse, and incarceration in the years preceding and following M.H.P.'s birth. The dependency proceedings commenced after Bramlett, accompanied by M.H.P., arrived at an emergency room showing signs of paranoia and threatening the ER staff. M.H.P. was removed from his parents' care; he remained in the custody of the State until a guardianship order was entered more than two years later. The Department of Social and Health Services and Diana Farrow, the court appointed special advocate (CASA) for M.H.P., appealed a superior court order denying their motion to unseal several sets of motions and orders. The underlying documents at issue were filed by M.H.P.'s parents to obtain public funding for expert services in connection with proceedings to terminate their parental rights. The court granted the motions ex parte without holding a hearing or providing notice to the other parties or to the public. After the CASA discovered the disputed orders, the Department moved to unseal the disputed documents. The Court of Appeals affirmed. After review, the Supreme Court reversed, finding the superior court's "indiscriminate ex parte sealing of documents pertaining to motions for public funding for expert services" violated General Rule (GR) 15; the justifications advanced by the superior court did not warrant creating a blanket exemption from GR 15 in parental termination cases; and in its memorandum opinion explaining the disputed orders, the superior court did not apply (or even mention) the "lshikawa" factors that all courts must analyze before granting a motion to seal. View "In re Dependency of M.H.P." on Justia Law

The estate of Etsuko Futagi Toland appealed a Court of Appeals decision upholding summary judgment that denied registration of a Japanese divorce decree awarding Etsuko Toland a monetary award against her former husband, Peter Paul Toland. The question to the Washington Supreme Court was whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying recognition of the divorce decree under comity principles because Paul was not given notice of a Japanese guardianship proceeding involving the couple's daughter. The Washington Court reversed: the 2008 guardianship had no effect on Paul's legal obligations under the 2006 divorce decree. The divorce decree was valid, and whether it should have been recognized as a matter of comity did not depend on whether Paul had notice of the guardianship proceeding. The Washington Court held that the trial court abused its discretion, and remanded this case back to the trial court for registration of the divorce decree. View "In re Estate of Toland" on Justia Law

The Certified Professional Guardianship Board (Board) has petitioned the Supreme Court to suspend guardian Lori Petersen for actions stemming from her guardianship of D.S. and J.S. Petersen has been a certified professional guardian since 2001. She owned and operated Empire Care and Guardianship, a large agency serving over 60 wards. From December 2009 until April 2010, the Board received a number of grievances and complaints regarding Petersen's treatment of three wards who were all, at one point, housed at Peterson Place, an adult family home. Petersen contended that suspension was improper and suggested:(1) the Board ran afoul of separation of powers principles; (2) violated the appearance of fairness doctrine; (3) impermissibly lowered the evidentiary standard; and (4) failed to consider the proportionality of the sanction. The Supreme Court agreed with Petersen as to her last contention: "She has questioned, albeit obliquely, the proportionality of the sanction, and so the Board should have considered the sanction's magnitude relative to those imposed in other cases. Accordingly, we remand to the Board to conduct a consistency analysis pursuant to its internal regulations" and the Court's opinion. View "In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Petersen" on Justia Law

Amy Westman (Buecking) filed for legal separation from Tim Buecking. Over a year later, she filed an amended petition for dissolution of marriage. The decree was entered 8 days too soon. Mr. Buecking appealed, raising for the first time on appeal his claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it entered the decree before the 90-day period had elapsed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the statutory 90-day period commences when the petition for dissolution is filed, not when a petition for legal separation (if any) is filed. Furthermore, the Court held in this case the error of duration was a legal error but not an error involving subject matter jurisdiction that could be raised at any time. View "In Re Marriage of Buecking" on Justia Law

The State brought a paternity action in 2008 to establish the parentage of C.M.F. Respondent Jonathan Fairfax was adjudicated C.M.F.'s father. Petitioner Amanda Simpson was designated custodian. Fairfax petitioned the family court to establish a parenting plan for C.M.F. Trial began on two years later. After Mr. Fairfax completed his case, Simpson moved the court to dismiss the petition under CR 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Fairfax had filed the wrong petition and failed to establish that there was adequate cause to hold a modification hearing. The court denied the motion, finding that the parentage order was not a custody decree and that Simpson's motion was untimely. Simpson presented her case, and the court created a final parenting plan that had C.M.F. residing with Fairfax for the majority of the time and designated Fairfax the "custodian of the child solely for purposes of all other state and federal statutes…" Simpson appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Because the superior court previously entered a parentage order that qualified as a custody decree, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Parentage of C.M.F." on Justia Law

B.M.H.'s natural father died six months before he was born. His mother's former boyfriend Michael Holt, was present at B.M.H.'s birth and, shortly afterward, married his mother. Mr. Holt petitioned for third party custody, or alternatively, an adjudication of de facto parentage. The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether, under "In re Parentage of MF.," (228 P.3d 1270 (2010)), no former stepparent could bring a de facto parentage petition. Another issue that arose from this case was whether there was adequate cause to support Mr. Holt's nonparental custody petition. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Mr. Holt did not meet the high burden imposed on those seeking third party custody. However, the Court found he was entitled to maintain his de facto parentage action. View "In re Custody of B.M.H." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether de facto parent status "stands in legal parity with an otherwise legal parent" biological, adoptive or otherwise. The Court concluded that in most cases foster parents will not be able to meet the criteria set forth in "In re Parentage of L.B." (122 P.3d 161 (2005)), but that status as a foster parent is not itself an absolute bar to establishing de facto parentage, and that the trial court can consider facts that arise during a foster care placement. View "In re Custody of A.F.J." on Justia Law

Abeda Jafar filed an action in superior court to obtain a parenting plan involving her 19-month old son. She also filed a motion under GR 34 to waive all mandatory fees and surcharges on the basis of indigency. The trial court found that Jafar was indigent, but granted her only a partial waiver of the fees and surcharges. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether under GR 34 trial courts had discretion to grant partial waivers of fees and surcharges. The Court held that GR 34 provided a uniform standard for determining whether an individual is indigent, and further required the court to waive all fees and costs for individuals who meet this standard. Accordingly, the Court vacated and remanded the trial court's order with instructions to waive all filing fees and surcharges. View "Jafar v. Webb" on Justia Law

In open court, Appellant Vanessa Condon and Respondent Fely Condon entered into a stipulated settlement and dismissal with prejudice of Vanessa's claims against Fely, stemming from an automobile accident. Before payment, Fely requested that Vanessa sign a release agreement, which the parties had not discussed nor placed on the record. Vanessa refused to sign, and Fely made a motion to enforce the settlement and release. The trial court deemed the release signed, and Vanessa appealed the trial court's order. On appeal, she argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce release terms that were not a part of the original agreement. Fely argued that Vanessa waived her right to appeal by accepting the settlement check. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Vanessa did not waive her right to appeal, and that the trial court improperly added implied terms to the agreement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Condon v. Condon" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on what the State must prove when seeking to terminate parental rights. The Court of Appeals interpreted language from the Court's decision in "In re Dependency of J.C.," (924 P.2d 21 (1996)), to mean that when the State presents evidence sufficient to prove the element codified in RCW 13.34.180(1)(e), it necessarily proved the element codified in RCW 13.34.180(1)(f). Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of the parental rights of K.D.S.'s father, Derek Gladin, because the State proved RCW 13.34.180(1)(e). Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm on these grounds. However, because the trial court properly found that the State had proved each element, the Court affirmed the decision to terminate Gladin's parental rights. View "In re Dependency of K.D.S." on Justia Law