Lavenna Cai & Leon Cai v. Benville Gustaffe ( 2022 )

FILED
JANUARY 25, 2022
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
LAVENNA CAI AND LEON CAI, )
) No. 37952-3-III
Petitioners, )
)
v. )
)
BENVILLE GUSTAFFE, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Respondent. )
STAAB, J. — Benville Gustaffe, N.G.’s biological father, appeals a trial court
decision that adjudicated Leon and Lavenna Cai to be N.G.’s de facto parents. Mr. and
Ms. Cai filed for non-parental custody of N.G. following the early death of N.G.’s
biological mother. The Cais alleged that Mr. Gustaffe is an unfit father and abusive. Mr.
Gustaffe appeared in the non-parental custody proceedings to dispute their claims and
establish sole custody. At a final hearing on the matter, the trial court determined sua
sponte that the Cais were N.G.’s de facto parents. The court awarded primary custody to
Mr. Gustaffe with substantial visitation to the Cais.
No. 37952-3-III
Cai v. Gustaffe
There are several statutory prerequisites to an adjudicative finding of de facto
parentage, including: claiming to be the de facto parent(s), filing a verified petition, an
opportunity for adverse parties to dispute the petition, and an expedited show cause
hearing when necessary to determine standing. Because these prerequisites were not met
in this case, the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the Cais were de facto
parents. We reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
N.G. was born on April 3, 2010, to Davon Nickerson and Benville “Raggs”
Gustaffe. When N.G. was born, Mr. Gustaffe and Ms. Nickerson were living together in
an apartment in Spokane, Washington. Ms. Nickerson and Mr. Gustaffe lived together
for approximately two years prior to N.G.’s birth, and continued living together until
N.G. was approximately two-and-a-half years old. After Ms. Nickerson and Mr. Gustaffe
separated, Ms. Nickerson moved to Colfax. When Mr. Gustaffe moved to Renton, his
visits with N.G. became less frequent and less regular.
In Colfax, Ms. Nickerson moved into a duplex she shared with her mother,
Yvonne McCulloh. Ms. Nickerson’s sister, LaVenna Cai, and her brother-in-law Leon
Cai, lived nearby. Shortly after moving to Colfax, Ms. Nickerson was diagnosed with
cancer. After the diagnosis, Ms. Cai provided her sister with periodic domestic support,
including financial assistance, preparing meals, and providing transportation.
2
No. 37952-3-III
Cai v. Gustaffe
In early 2018, Ms. Nickerson and Mr. Gustaffe scheduled a visitation mediation
with retired Judge Richard White. On March 1, 2018, Ms. Nickerson and Mr. Gustaffe
met with Judge White and successfully mediated an informal parenting plan. As part of
the mediation, the parents agreed that Ms. Nickerson and Mr. Gustaffe loved each other
and N.G.; it was important for Mr. Gustaffe to have a “close, loving relationship with
[N.G.]” and that “[N.G.] should have regular consistent parenting time with her father.”
Ms. Nickerson agreed that Mr. Gustaffe should have N.G. at least one weekend per
month. When possible, the weekend should be a three-day weekend to give Mr. Gustaffe
the maximum time possible with N.G. without interfering with her school schedule.
Majority holidays would be shared.
The parties also agreed that during the summer of 2018, Ms. Nickerson and Mr.
Gustaffe would move to a schedule where N.G. would alternate between their homes for
two-week periods. After N.G.’s school let out for summer break, N.G. went with Mr.
Gustaffe to Seattle and began the two-week-on-two-week-off schedule with her father.
However, approximately five days into the first visit, Ms. Nickerson called Mr. Gustaffe
and asked him to return N.G. to Colfax. After discussing the issue with Judge White, Mr.
Gustaffe agreed to return N.G. to Colfax. N.G. remained with her mother for the
remainder of the summer.
3
No. 37952-3-III
Cai v. Gustaffe
Ms. Nickerson lost her battle with cancer and passed away on September 13, 2018.
Her last will and testament, signed two days before her death, named the Cais as N.G.’s
guardians in the event such was necessary.
After Ms. Nickerson passed away, N.G. began living with the Cais. The Cais
retained an attorney, and on September 28, 2018, filed (1) a non-parent custody petition
claiming Mr. Gustaffe was an unfit father, and (2) an ex-parte motion for an immediate
restraining order preventing Mr. Gustaffe from having any time with N.G. Both filings
included allegations that Mr. Gustaffe was an abusive father who would be a danger to
N.G.
Meanwhile, still unaware that Ms. Nickerson had passed away, Mr. Gustaffe made
several attempts to contact her in late September and early October. After eventually
learning from Judge White that Ms. Nickerson had passed away, Mr. Gustaffe
immediately called the Colfax Police Department and asked for a civil standby to assist
him with picking up N.G. During this call, Mr. Gustaffe was informed that the Cais had
obtained a restraining order against him. Mr. Gustaffe retained counsel and appeared in
the Cais’ non-parental custody case.
The Cais filed an amended non-parent custody petition, and moved for an
adequate cause hearing and temporary custody. In these filings, the Cais asserted that
Mr. Gustaffe was an unfit father and dangerous to N.G. The Cais also moved for
appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL), alleging that (1) N.G. had established
4
No. 37952-3-III
Cai v. Gustaffe
relationships with her extended family in Colfax but did not have an established
relationship with Mr. Gustaffe, (2) N.G. appeared to not want to speak to Mr. Gustaffe on
the telephone, and (3) Mr. Gustaffe had a history of being physically and emotionally
abusive toward Ms. Nickerson and her children. The trial court granted the Cais’ motion
for adequate cause and entered a temporary residential schedule providing the Cais with
custody of N.G. Under the terms of these orders, Mr. Gustaffe was required to complete
a domestic violence and mental health evaluation and provide proof of completing both
of these assessments.
The court also appointed a GAL to investigate the allegations against Mr.
Gustaffe. During her investigation, the GAL filed three reports with the court. At trial,
the GAL candidly testified that she began her investigation believing that Mr. Gustaffe
was an unfit father. After completing nearly two dozen interviews, talking to N.G.’s
counselors, and personally observing Mr. Gustaffe with N.G., the GAL found Mr.
Gustaffe to be a fit father. The trial court echoed this sentiment when the judge stated:
Mr. Gustaffe’s been run through STOP, through DV, through mental
health, through everything the Court ordered to begin with and he’s passed
in flying colors. I don’t know if there’s anything more that we can look at
from those perspectives because he’s done them, he was ordered to do them
and he did do them quickly and without hesitation or reservation or without
kicking up a bunch of dust, pulling his heels to do them.
Report of Proceedings (RP) at 1058.
5
No. 37952-3-III
Cai v. Gustaffe
The GAL found that N.G. viewed Mr. Gustaffe as a father figure before Ms.
Nickerson’s death, and that Ms. Nickerson had made no efforts to restrict Mr. Gustaffe’s
parenting time before her death. The GAL also wrote in her report that it was essential
that N.G. continue to see the Cai family regularly and that it would benefit N.G. to be
given opportunities to be together with the Cai family in Colfax. At the close of trial, the
judge stated, speaking of Mr. Gustaffe “there’s no question in my mind that N.G. is your
heart, your soul, your love.” RP at 1065.
Despite finding Mr. Gustaffe to be a fit parent, and that there was “no valid
reasons why [N.G] should not live with [Mr. Gustaffe],” the trial court found “beyond a
reasonable doubt that [the Cais] were [N.G.]’s de facto parents.” Clerk’s Papers at 147,
148. The court’s conclusion was the first time the term “de facto” parenting was used in
these proceedings. The Cais did not argue that they were N.G.’s de facto parents in their
initial petition, their amended petition, or at trial. Instead, the Cais focused exclusively
on the classic factors of non-parental custody: whether Mr. Gustaffe was a fit parent, and
whether there would be actual detriment to N.G. if she were to live with Mr. Gustaffe.
Based on its finding that the Cais were N.G.’s de facto parents, the court entered a
residential schedule awarding Mr. Gustaffe primary custody of N.G., but providing
substantial visitation with the Cais. The residential schedule requires Mr. Gustaffe to
drive to Vantage to facilitate exchanges with the Cais, and gives them the right to object
if Mr. Gustaffe attempts to move from his current residence. The order requires regular
6
No. 37952-3-III
Cai v. Gustaffe
phone communications between N.G. and the Cais, and gives them the legal right to
access N.G.’s counseling records.
ANALYSIS
We review the trial court’s decision to proclaim the Cais as N.G.’s de facto parents
under an abuse of discretion standard. See In re the Parentage of J.A.B., 146 Wn. App.
417, 422, 191 P.3d 71 (2008) (rulings concerning the placement of a child are reviewed
for abuse of discretion). A trial court abuses its discretion if it misapplies the law or
relies on unsupported facts. Gildon v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 158 Wn.2d 483, 494, 145
P.3d 1196 (2006).
Effective January 2019, the Washington State Legislature codified de facto
parentage, RCW 26.26A.440, adopting language from the Uniform Parentage Act of
2017, 9B U.L.A. 80 (2019). This provision allows for parental rights to be established by
adjudication. Similar to the common law pronouncement, the purpose of the statute is to
“‘ensure[ ] that individuals who form strong parent-child bonds with children with the
consent and encouragement of the child’s legal parent are not excluded from a
determination of parentage simply because they entered the child’s life sometime after
the child’s birth.’” In re the Parentage of J.D.W., 14 Wn. App. 2d 388, 404, 471 P.3d
228 (2020) (quoting UNIF. PARENTAGE ACT (2017) § 609 cmt., 9B U.L.A. 80-81 (2019)).
The Washington statute provides for the establishment of de facto parentage by a
non-parent when statutory requirements are met. RCW 26.26A.440. Such a proceeding
7
No. 37952-3-III
Cai v. Gustaffe
can only be commenced by an individual who claims to be a de facto parent of the child.
RCW 26.26A.440(1)(b). A petitioner seeking de facto parentage status must initially file
a verified petition setting forth specific facts sufficient to support the claim of de facto
parentage. RCW 26.26A.440(3)(a). Any adverse party, including a legal parent, can
respond and dispute the facts set forth in the petition. RCW 26.26A.440(3)(b). A
hearing to determine any dispute of standing must be conducted on an expedited basis.
RCW 26.26A.440(3)(c).
None of these procedures occurred in this case. The Cais did not petition for de
facto parentage, Mr. Gustaffe was not given an opportunity to respond to such a petition,
and the trial court did not hold a de facto parentage proceeding to consider whether the
Cais could prove standing. In their response brief, the Cais stated that they argued they
were N.G.’s de facto parents both in their pleadings and at the hearing for final orders.
Br. of Resp’t at 28. This is not reflected in the record. Additionally, there is no transcript
of the hearing for final orders. As such, any arguments made to establish de facto
parentage at this stage are outside the record on appeal. Furthermore, throughout the
record, the Cais admitted that they were not acting as parents to N.G. The Cais
consistently referred to themselves as N.G.’s aunt and uncle throughout the trial and
afterwards.
In order to protect the fundamental rights of parents, the correct procedure to
establish de facto parentage must be followed. The failure to do so is an abuse of
8
No. 37952-3-III
Cai v. Gustaffe
discretion. We reverse the trial court’s adjudication of the Cais as N.G.’s de facto parents
along with the residential schedule based on this finding without prejudice to any
subsequent petitions.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
_________________________________
Staab, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
Pennell, C.J.
_________________________________
Siddoway, J.
9