In the Matter of the Parentage of: Natalie M. Moore & David S. Leeson ( 2020 )

FILED
MARCH 31, 2020
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
In the Matter of the Parentage of )
) No. 36375-9-III
NATALIE M. MOORE, )
)
Respondent, )
)
and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
DAVID S. LEESON, )
)
Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. — David Leeson appeals from a superior court judge’s ruling on
revision that determined there was no adequate cause to change the existing parenting
plan. Since that ruling has been overtaken by subsequent developments, this appeal is
moot.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The relationship between Natalie Moore and David Leeson produced one child,
SL. The relationship ended in 2015 and the mother petitioned in 2016 for a parenting
No. 36375-9-III
In re Leeson & Moore
plan. A contentious period followed involving repeated contempt motions by the father
concerning the mother’s alleged failures to live up to the terms of the temporary
parenting plan. The parties eventually were able to reach a CR 2A settlement that
resulted in a final parenting plan in early 2018 that gave primary custody to the father,
but included visitation with the mother. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 693-702.
By June 2018, Mr. Leeson filed for a major modification of the parenting plan that
requested all visitation between SL and her mother be supervised. Among the several
bases asserted in the motion was the contention that Ms. Moore physically abused her
daughter. Ms. Moore denied the allegations and presented evidence that Child Protective
Services (CPS) concluded that the allegation of physical abuse was unfounded.
Nonetheless, the father contended that the report was turned over to law enforcement for
investigation of criminal charges.
The father moved to strike evidence of the CPS report on foundational and hearsay
grounds. A court commissioner concluded that grounds existed for a major modification.
The mother moved to revise that ruling. On review Judge Ellen Clark modified the
commissioner’s ruling. She noted that CPS findings were significant and that
modification was not appropriate given the “unfounded” conclusion by CPS.
Mr. Leeson appealed from the modification ruling. Subsequently, additional
grounds for modification developed and Mr. Leeson filed a new motion for modification
of the parenting plan. Ms. Moore agreed to adequate cause and a guardian ad litem was
2
No. 36375-9-III
In re Leeson & Moore
appointed. CP at 1191. Apparently awaiting the guardian’s report, no hearing has yet
been held.
A panel considered Mr. Leeson’s appeal without conducting argument.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Leeson contends that the trial judge erred in revising the commissioner’s
ruling. In light of the fact that a modification hearing is pending, this appeal is moot.
An issue is moot if a court can no longer give effective relief. E.g., In re
Detention of LaBelle, 107 Wash. 2d 196, 200, 728 P.2d 138 (1986). That is the situation
here. The relief sought by Mr. Leeson in his 2018 motion was a hearing to modify the
conditions of the parenting plan. As a result of rulings in 2019, a modification hearing is
pending in the superior court.
This court, even if it agreed with Mr. Leeson, cannot grant him any relief since he
has already obtained the modification hearing that he sought. When the pending
modification is heard, the trial court will decide that ruling on its merits after looking at
current conditions in the households. Even if we believed the 2018 allegations merited
review, there is no basis in the future for the superior court to look backwards at the
former conditions of the household in that year. The court’s 2020 assessment will
govern.
3
No. 36375-9-III
In re Leeson & Moore
This appeal is moot. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
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.
_________________________________
Korsmo, A.C.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
Fearing, J.
_________________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
4