In Re The Marriage Of: Catherine Fan v. Shane Antos ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    In the Matter of the Marriage of:            )     No. 77490-5-I
    CATHERINEANGELAFAN,                          )     DIVISIONONE
    Respondent,                  )     UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    and
    SHANE BENJAMIN ANTOS,                        )
    Appellant.                  )     FILED: April 1, 2019
    HAZELRIGG-HERNANDEZ, J.     —   RCW 29.09.187(3)(a) requires trial courts to
    consider RCW 26.09.19 1 restrictions when creating a parenting plan. In order to
    preserve issues for appeal, a party must object at trial. Because the trial court was
    required to consider parenting plan restrictions, and because Antos failed to object
    to many of his asserted errors at trial, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    FACTS
    Catherine Fan and Shane Antos were married in September 2011. They
    had one daughter, NA. In June 2013, the parties separated.
    The parties engaged in email communications regarding the distribution of
    property. While the parties “identified an overall plan” they did not agree to the
    fundamental terms of an enforceable agreement. The parties disagreed about the
    disbursement of the proceeds from the sale of the house they owned together.
    Fan filed for dissolution on July 8, 2016.
    No. 77490-5-1/2
    Over Antos’s objection, the trial court froze the proceeds from the house
    sale. Antos requested a pre-distribution of $80,000 at a hearing on August 4, 2016.
    The court rejected that request based on Antos’s representation that he still had
    substantial savings available. On January 5, 2017, Antos rejected mutual pre
    distributions of $25,000. He rejected mutual pre-distributions again on February
    16, 2017.
    At the request of the parties, the trial court appointed a parenting evaluator,
    Elise Buie. Antos received her report before the pretrial conference on July 13,
    2017, at least 31 days before the trial.
    At trial, Fan presented testimony from the parenting evaluator, Buie,
    multiple lay witnesses, the psychologist who evaluated both parties, NA’s
    pediatrician, and herself.
    Antos participated only intermittently in trial proceedings. He submitted a
    written motion for continuance on the second day of trial, but was not present to
    address his motion until the third and final day of trial, when it was denied. He
    presented no evidence and cross-examined only one witness.
    The court found Antos engaged in the abusive use of conflict; he
    demonstrated a risk of loud, angry, or caustic exchanges that exposed N.A. to
    instability and could impair her sense of security; Antos’s mental health or
    emotional issue made it “almost impossible for him to make decisions on behalf of
    [NA.] in a timely and necessary manner for her.”; Antos may have a long-term
    problem with drugs, alcohol, or other substances that interfere with his ability to
    2
    No. 77490-5-1/3
    parent; and concerns regarding Antos’s use of marijuana and Adderall “must be
    further explored.”
    After trial, a final divorce order was entered, including a parenting plan
    containing RCW26.09.191 restrictions, and an order for child support.
    ANALYSIS
    I.     Parenting Plan
    Superior courts have original jurisdiction of all matters of divorce. WASH.
    CONST. Art. 4 §6.    This court reviews parenting plans for “manifest abuse of
    discretion, which occurs when the trial court’s ‘decision is manifestly unreasonable
    or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons.” In re Marriage of Black,
    
    188 Wash. 2d 114
    , 127, 
    392 P.3d 1041
     (2017) (quoting In re Marriage of Chandola,
    
    180 Wash. 2d 632
    , 642, 
    327 P.3d 644
     (2014)). The trial court’s discretion is cabined
    by provisions in RCW 26.09. Chandola, 180 Wn.2d at 642, 
    327 P.3d 644
     (2014),
    (citing In re Marriage of Katare, 
    175 Wash. 2d 23
    , 35-36, 
    283 P.3d 546
     (2012)).
    Superior courts are required by statute to consider the limiting provisions of RCW
    26.09.191 when determining residential provisions of a parenting plan. Katare, 175
    Wn.2d at 35-36 (citing In re Marriage of Kovacs, 
    121 Wash. 2d 795
    , 801, 
    854 P.2d 629
     (1993)); RCW 26.09.187(3)(a) (“The child’s residential schedule shall be
    consistent with RCW 26.09.191.” (emphasis added)). We review the meaning of
    astatutedenovo. Statev.Wooten, 
    178 Wash. 2d 890
    , 895, 312 P.3d41 (2013) (citing
    Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 
    146 Wash. 2d 1
    , 9, 
    43 P.3d 4
     (2002)).
    The trial court does not need to find actual harm to a child to impose
    restrictions, but may impose restrictions where substantial evidence shows that a
    3
    No. 77490-5-1/4
    danger of damage exists. Chandola, 180 Wn.2d at 645, (quoting Katare, 175
    Wn.2d at 35-36).
    Antos argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter parenting
    plan restrictions under RCW 26.09.191, when Fan’s pleadings did not request
    those restrictions. In the alternative, he argues that the court could only have
    gained jurisdiction to impose those restrictions by implicitly amending the
    pleadings.
    His arguments ignore the mandatory language of ROW 29.09.187(3)(a),
    requiring the trial court to create a parenting plan consistent with ROW 26.09.191.
    Because the statutory scheme requires the court to consider parenting plan
    restrictions, it was not an abuse of the trial court’s authority or discretion to consider
    those restrictions. Instead, failing to comply with the statute’s mandatory language
    would have been an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
    ROW 26.09.191(3) permits the court to limit any provision of the parenting
    plan if the courtfinds any of the following factors: a long-term emotional impairment
    interferes with the parent’s performance of parenting functions, a long-term
    impairment resulting from drug, alcohol, or other substance abuse that interferes
    with the performance of parenting functions, or the abusive use of conflict by the
    parent which creates the danger of serious damage to the child’s psychological
    development. ROW 26.09.191 (3)(b), (c), (e).
    Here, the trial court found that Antos engaged in the abusive use of conflict
    and had mental or emotional issues that interfered with his ability to make
    decisions for N.A. in a timely and necessary manner for her. Antos does not
    4
    No. 77490-5-1/5
    challenge these factual findings. ‘Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on
    appeal.” Welfare of A.W., 
    182 Wash. 2d 689
    , 711, 
    344 P.3d 1186
     (2015) (citing
    Merriman v. Cokeley, 
    168 Wash. 2d 627
    , 631, 
    230 P.3d 162
     (2010)).                 Those
    unchallenged findings permit the trial court to exercise its discretion and impose
    parenting plan restrictions under RCW 26.09.191. The court also made findings
    that Antos’s mental health and substance abuse issues needed to be further
    explored.
    Antos relies on In re Marriage of Watson, which held that unproven
    allegations do not provide substantial evidence in support of visitation restrictions.
    
    132 Wash. App. 222
    , 233, 
    130 P.3d 915
     (2006). Here, the court found the allegations
    of abusive use of conflict and long-term emotional impairment were substantiated
    and support the imposition of restrictions under RCW 26.09.191. Antos argues
    that the court’s finding regarding his substance use needing further exploration is
    insufficient to justify substance abuse based restrictions. The court here found a
    risk of substance abuse with Antos, rather than finding that substance abuse
    actually occurred.
    However, this case is more appropriately compared to Katare than Watson.
    In the case of Katare, the Supreme Court upheld a parenting plan restriction when
    the court found the father presented a risk of abduction, despite the fact that no
    abduction or attempted abduction had occurred. 175 Wn.2d at 36. The court
    distinguished Watson, finding that restrictions cannot be imposed for unfounded
    reasons. k~. at 37. Here, the finding that Antos might abuse substances is well
    supported by the record. Because it was within the trial court’s discretion to find a
    5
    No. 77490-5-1/6
    risk of harm to N.A. based on that evidence, and to impose restrictions on that
    basis, we affirm the parenting plan.
    II.    Scheduling and Continuances
    We review a decision to deny a continuance for manifest abuse of
    discretion. In re Dependency of V.R.R., 
    134 Wash. App. 573
    , 580-81, 
    141 P.3d 85
    (2006), (citing City of Tacoma v. Bishop, 
    82 Wash. App. 850
    , 861, 
    920 P.2d 214
    (1996)). “In deciding a motion to continue, the trial court takes into account a
    number of factors, including diligence, due process, the need for an orderly
    procedure, the possible effect on the trial, and whether prior continuances were
    granted.” ki.
    Here, the trial court denied Antos’s oral motions for continuance at two pre
    trial conferences and during the opening day of trial. At each pre-trial conference,
    the court instructed Antos to put his motions for continuance in writing and provide
    notice to the opposing party of the motion. Antos did not file a written motion until
    the second day of trial. He did not appear in court the second day of trial. On the
    third and final day of trial, Antos appeared and the court denied the motion for
    continuance.
    Antos argues that “[t}he rights of pro se litigants require careful protection
    where highly technical requirements are involved.” Garaux v. Pulley, 
    739 F.2d 437
    ,
    439 (gth. Cir. 1984). That argument is sound, but inapplicable. Submitting a written
    motion and providing notice to the opposing party are not highly technical
    requirements.
    6
    No. 77490-5-117
    The trial court repeatedly instructed Antos on the requirements to have his
    motion considered. Antos was more than capable of meeting those requirements.
    He failed to do so until the third day of trial, and the court properly denied his
    motion.
    Antos argues that the court “violated” RCW 26.12.175(1)(b) when it
    permitted the trial to commence on August 14, 49 days after the parenting
    evaluation report was filed, despite his oral requests for a continuance.
    It does not appear that the cited statute applies to this case.      RCW
    26.12.175 permits courts to appoint a guardian ad litem and sets forth the duties
    of guardians ad litem. RCW 26.09.220 permits courts to order an investigation
    and report concerning parenting arrangements, appoint a guardian ad litem
    pursuant to RCW26.12.175, or both. RCW26.09.220(3) requires the investigator
    appointed under that statute to “provide his or her report to counsel and to any
    party not represented by counsel at least ten days prior to the hearing unless a
    shorter time is ordered by the court for good cause shown.”
    Here, the trial court appointed Buie as a parenting evaluator, not as a
    guardian ad litem. Although the court referred to her as a guardian ad litem at
    times, the substance of her role in this case was only to provide a parenting
    evaluation, and did not include other guardian ad litem duties—such as legal
    representation of N.A. or pursuit of her best interests. The requirements for her
    report are contained in RCW 26.09.220(3). Antos received her report before the
    pretrial conference on July 13, 2017, more than 31 days before the trial.
    7
    No. 77490-5-118
    Finally, Antos argues that he should have been granted a continuance to
    defend against the parenting plan restrictions. This argument is predicated on his
    previous argument that the parenting plan restrictions were required to be
    presented in the pleadings, which we reject above. Antos based his argument on
    the premise that he did not have proper notice in order to present evidence to the
    court opposing restrictions and needed the additional time to prepare his response.
    Given that Fan filed declarations regarding a number of incidents supporting
    parenting plan restrictions with the pleadings, Antos’s notice argument fails. We
    find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion regarding Antos’ motions for
    continuance, and affirm.
    Ill.    Temporary Injunction
    In a dissolution proceeding, RCW 26.09.060(2)(a) permits the trial court to
    restrain persons from disposing of any property, except in the usual course of
    business or for the necessities of life. Antos argues that the court violated RCW
    26.090.060(2)(a) because the court did not make such an exception for him to
    access the funds from the sale of the house. Antos both requested a (unilateral)
    pre-distribution and rejected a (mutual) pre-distribution. While Antos was pro se
    for much of the proceedings, he was represented at each hearing regarding pre
    distribution. There were mechanisms in place to make sure Antos had access to
    funds for costs of living and attorney’s fees. Antos refused to take advantage of
    them.
    Additionally, Antos argues that the court failed to comply with CR
    52(a)(2)(A) because the court did not issue proper findings of fact and conclusions
    8
    No. 77490-5-1/9
    of law when granting the temporary injunction. CR 52(a)(2)(A) requires trial courts
    to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law whenever the court orders such a
    restraint. However, if the trial court fails to make the required findings of fact, the
    appellate court may review the court’s oral opinion and record below and need not
    remand when the opinion or the record is clear. Pepper v. King County, 61 Wn.
    App. 339, 350-51, 
    810 P.2d 527
     (1991). The record below reveals clearly the
    court’s basis for imposing the injunction, preserving the disputed proceeds of the
    house sale.
    Further, Antos filed a motion for revision of the Commissioner’s August 4,
    2016 temporary restraining order regarding the proceeds from the sale of the
    home. That matter was heard by a judge after arguments and additional materials
    were presented to the court by both parties. The latter hearing on Antos’s motion
    to revise resulted in an order that directed the parties with greater specificity, but
    ultimately incorporated the same limitations on pretrial distributions ordered by the
    Commissioner. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing temporary
    financial restraints under the broad authority of RCW 26.090.060(2)(a).
    IV.    Issues We Decline to Reach
    We may refuse to review any claim of error which was not raised in the trial
    court. RAP 2.5(a). Antos argues that a number of issues regarding the trial court’s
    division of property and award of child support are unsupported by the facts in the
    record. He also argues the trial court erred by appointing Fan’s preferred parenting
    evaluator. Because Antos did not participate in trial and did not object to the court’s
    9
    No. 77490-5-1/10
    orders, he failed to preserve these issues for appeal. We affirm the trial court
    without considering these issues.
    Antos argues the cumulative error doctrine entitles him to a new trial,
    without citing any authority that supports the application of cumulative error
    doctrine to a civil case. Where no authority is cited in support of a proposition, the
    court is not required to search for them and may assume counsel has diligently
    searched and found none. DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelliqencer, 
    60 Wash. 2d 122
    ,
    126, 
    372 P.2d 193
     (1962). Washington courts have not yet applied cumulative
    error to civil cases, and we decline to consider applying it to those cases without a
    reasoned argument.
    Antos finally argues that this case should be assigned to a new judge on
    remand. Because we affirm the judgment of the trial court, we need not address
    this issue.
    WE CONCUR:
    /