In re the Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wash. 2d 337

77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003) · Supreme Court of Washington · October 27, 2003 · No. No. 72366-4

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed a contempt order against a parent who failed to comply with a parenting plan and a subsequent order requiring delivery of a child for court-ordered residential time. The court held that, when documentary submissions require credibility determinations, appellate review applies a substantial-evidence standard rather than de novo review. It further held that a parent may be held in contempt under RCW 26.09.160 for failing to make reasonable efforts to require a child to comply with ordered residential time.

Holdings

  1. When a contempt proceeding based solely on documentary evidence requires the trial court to weigh competing evidence, resolve conflicts, and determine credibility, the appellate court reviews the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence rather than de novo.
  2. A parent may be held in contempt under RCW 26.09.160 when a child resists court-ordered residential time and the parent either contributes to the child’s resistance or fails to make reasonable efforts to require the child to comply with the parenting plan and residential-time order.
  3. The Court of Appeals erred to the extent it awarded attorney fees under RCW 26.09.140 solely because Christopher was the prevailing party, but the fee award could be affirmed under RCW 26.09.160 because the fees related to Sara’s contempt and noncompliance.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether findings of fact based solely on documentary submissions in a contempt proceeding should be reviewed de novo or for substantial evidence when the trial court was required to weigh credibility and conflicting evidence.
  2. Whether a parent may be held in contempt under RCW 26.09.160 when a child resists court-ordered residential time and the parent either contributes to the child’s resistance or fails to make reasonable efforts to require compliance.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeals properly awarded Christopher attorney fees based solely on his status as the prevailing party under RCW 26.09.140.
  4. Whether Christopher was entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal under RCW 26.09.160.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (13)

  • In re Marriage of Rideout, 110 Wash. App. 370, 40 P.3d 1192 (2002)(followed)
  • In re Marriage of Rideout, 147 Wash. 2d 1008, 54 P.3d 1212 (2002)(procedural history)
  • Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wash. 2d 243, 252, 884 P.2d 592 (1994)(followed in part)
  • Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wash. 2d 715, 718, 453 P.2d 832 (1969)(followed in part)
  • In re Marriage of Flynn, 94 Wash. App. 185, 190, 972 P.2d 500 (1999)(followed in part)
  • Danielson v. City of Seattle, 45 Wash. App. 235, 240, 724 P.2d 1115 (1986), aff'd, 108 Wash. 2d 788, 742 P.2d 717 (1987)(followed in part)
  • In re Parentage of Jannot, 110 Wash. App. 16, 37 P.3d 1265 (2002), aff'd, 149 Wash. 2d 123, 65 P.3d 664 (2003)(followed)
  • In re Marriage of James, 79 Wash. App. 436, 445, 903 P.2d 470 (1995)(distinguished)
  • In re Marriage of Farr, 87 Wash. App. 177, 940 P.2d 679 (1997)(followed by analogy)
  • Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wash. 2d 751, 766, 58 P.3d 276 (2002)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 13.

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