In re Marriage of Chandola, 180 Wn. 2d 632

327 P.3d 644 (2014) · Supreme Court of the State of Washington · June 19, 2014 · No. 89093-5

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court interpreted RCW 26.09.191(3)(g), which permits restrictions on parenting plans based on conduct adversely affecting a child's best interests. The court held that such restrictions must be reasonably calculated to prevent relatively severe physical, mental, or emotional harm to the child. It upheld restrictions on the father's residential time and cosleeping but reversed the restriction on the child's contact with her paternal grandparents.

Holdings

  1. A parenting-plan restriction imposed under RCW 26.09.191(3)(g) must be reasonably calculated to prevent relatively severe physical, mental, or emotional harm to the child, comparable in severity to the harms identified in RCW 26.09.191(3)(a)-(f).
  2. The trial court did not improperly rely on the unfounded sexual-abuse allegations or on conditions resulting from supervised visitation.
  3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting Chandola's residential time with his daughter.
  4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Chandola from cosleeping with his daughter.
  5. The trial court abused its discretion by limiting the paternal grandparents' presence during Chandola's residential time to 20 percent.
  6. Neither party was entitled to attorney fees or costs on review under RCW 26.09.140 or on the asserted basis of intransigence.

Questions Presented

  1. What level of adverse effect on a child's best interests must a trial court find before imposing parenting-plan restrictions under RCW 26.09.191(3)(g)?
  2. Whether the trial court improperly relied on circumstances resulting from unfounded sexual-abuse allegations and supervised visitation.
  3. Whether the restrictions on Chandola's residential time and cosleeping were reasonably calculated to prevent the type of harm required by RCW 26.09.191(3)(g).
  4. Whether the restriction on the child's contact with her paternal grandparents satisfied RCW 26.09.191(3)(g).
  5. Whether either party was entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (25)

  • In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23, 283 P.3d 546 (2012)(followed)
  • In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997)(followed)
  • Ferree v. Doric Co., 62 Wn.2d 561, 383 P.2d 900 (1963)(followed)
  • In re Custody of B.M.H., 179 Wn.2d 224, 315 P.3d 470 (2013)(distinguished)
  • In re Custody of Shields, 157 Wn.2d 126, 136 P.3d 117 (2006)(distinguished)
  • In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 (1998)(limited)
  • Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982)(limited)
  • In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wn.2d 679, 122 P.3d 161 (2005)(followed)
  • Simpson Inv. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 141 Wn.2d 139, 3 P.3d 741 (2000)(followed)
  • John H. Sellen Constr. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 87 Wn.2d 878, 558 P.2d 1342 (1976)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Washington Supreme Court Of The State