In the Matter of the Marriage of: Daniel Matthew Mancoff & Amanda Lynne Ramsey ( 2022 )

FILED
APRIL 5, 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
In the Matter of the Marriage of: ) No. 38553-1-III
)
DANIEL MATTHEW MANCOFF, )
)
Respondent, )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
and )
)
AMANDA LYNNE RAMSEY, )
)
Appellant. )
PENNELL, J. — Amanda Lynne Ramsey appeals a final divorce order, restraining
order, and parenting plan. The orders place Ms. Ramsey’s daughter, P.R., in the primary
residential care of P.R.’s father, Daniel Matthew Mancoff. The orders also restrict Ms.
Ramsey from having contact with P.R. until recommended by Ms. Ramsey’s therapist.
We affirm.
FACTS
Amanda Ramsey and Daniel Mancoff’s relationship ended when Ms. Ramsey
filed for a domestic violence protection order alleging Mr. Mancoff sexually and
physically abused their daughter, P.R. Both Mr. Mancoff and P.R. consistently denied
Ms. Ramsey’s accusations, resulting in Mr. Mancoff filing for divorce and seeking sole
custody of P.R. The trial court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to investigate Ms.
Ramsey’s accusations, and Mr. Mancoff’s accusations that Ms. Ramsey was mentally ill.
No. 38553-1-III
In re Marriage of Mancoff & Ramsey
The GAL found no basis for Ms. Ramsey’s accusations and recommended she enter
therapy. The GAL and various fact witnesses who had personally interacted with
Ms. Ramsey found her to be an inconsistent and sometimes incredible storyteller.
At the dissolution trial, Mr. Mancoff presented extensive evidence of Ms.
Ramsey’s postseparation emotional abuse of P.R. While Ms. Ramsey disputed this
evidence, the trial court found Ms. Ramsey not credible and that she had committed
“repeated [acts of] emotional abuse” against P.R. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 2188. Based on
these repeated acts of emotional abuse, Ms. Ramsey’s long-term emotional deficiencies,
and her abusive use of conflict, the court awarded Mr. Mancoff sole custody of P.R.
and suspended visitation for Ms. Ramsey until it was recommended by a therapist.
Ms. Ramsey timely appeals. A Division Three panel considered Ms.
Ramsey’s appeal without oral argument after receipt of an administrative transfer of the
case from Division Two.
ANALYSIS
Credibility finding
Ms. Ramsey challenges the trial court’s adverse credibility determination, claiming
it was unsupported by the evidence at trial. Mr. Mancoff answers that a trier of fact’s
credibility determinations are not reviewable on appeal. We agree with Mr. Mancoff.
2
No. 38553-1-III
In re Marriage of Mancoff & Ramsey
This court reviews the factual findings of a trial court in a bench trial for
substantial evidence. State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102, 105-06, 330 P.3d 182 (2014).
“‘Substantial evidence’ is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the
truth of the matter asserted.” In re Marriage of Chandola, 180 Wn.2d 632, 642, 327 P.3d
644 (2014). “[T]his court must defer to the finder of fact in resolving conflicting evidence
and credibility determinations.” State v. N.B., 7 Wn. App. 2d 831, 837, 436 P.3d 358(2019).
A credibility assessment is not a fact. Credibility can be undermined by various
factors, such as demeanor and nonsubstantive impeachment evidence. Because an adverse
credibility determination is not a factual finding, it need not be justified by substantial
evidence. Ms. Ramsey fails to point to any authority showing otherwise. DeHeer v.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126, 372 P.2d 193 (1962) (“Where no
authorities are cited in support of a proposition, the court is not required to search out
authorities, but may assume that counsel, after diligent search, has found none.”).
We reject Ms. Ramsey’s challenge to the trial court’s credibility assessment.
Pattern of emotional abuse
Ms. Ramsey contends the trial court abused its discretion by applying the wrong
legal standard when it suspended her residential time because she repeatedly inflicted
3
No. 38553-1-III
In re Marriage of Mancoff & Ramsey
emotional abuse on P.R. Ms. Ramsey points out that under the statute, the mandatory
restriction on residential time requires a finding of a “pattern of emotional abuse.”
RCW 26.09.191(2)(a)(ii) (emphasis added). The statute does not use the word “repeated.”
Mr. Mancoff responds that “pattern” and “repeated” mean the same thing. We disagree
with Mr. Mancoff’s linguistic analysis. Nevertheless, we uphold the trial court’s
restriction.
“The trial court’s review of a matter concerning the rights of custody and visitation
will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” In re Marriage of Chua, 149 Wn.
App. 147, 153, 202 P.3d 367 (2009). “A court abuses its discretion where the court
applies an incorrect standard, the record does not support the court’s findings, or the facts
do not meet the requirements of the correct standard.” In re Marriage of Kim, 179 Wn.
App. 232, 240, 317 P.3d 555 (2014).
The phrase “pattern of emotional abuse” is not defined by the statute. According to
the dictionary definition, “repeated” means “renewed or recurring again and again:
CONSTANT, FREQUENT.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1924
(1993). “Pattern,” on the other hand, is defined as “a reliable sample of traits, acts, or
other observable features characterizing an individual.” Id. at 1657. Repeated acts are
necessary to discern a pattern. But mere repetition does not necessarily create a pattern.
4
No. 38553-1-III
In re Marriage of Mancoff & Ramsey
We therefore agree with Ms. Ramsey that a finding of repeated acts does not necessitate a
finding of a pattern.
While it would have been preferable for the trial court to use the word “pattern”
instead of “repeated,” the record as a whole shows the trial court found a pattern of
emotional abuse. After listing Ms. Ramsey’s various acts of emotional abuse against P.R.,
the court found “[Ms.] Ramsey’s behaviors and choices, including repeated disparaging
comments to and about [P.R.] and Mr. Mancoff, have been the source of distance and
estranged relationship between herself and [P.R.].” CP at 2189. This clearly displays the
court’s determination that Ms. Ramsey’s emotional abuse of P.R. followed a pattern that
characterized the mother-daughter relationship. Any error by the trial court in utilizing the
word “repeated” instead of “pattern” was of no consequence to the trial court’s ultimate
ruling.
Even if the trial court applied the wrong standard, such error was harmless. This
court reverses only where an error prejudices a party. Driggs v. Howlett, 193 Wn. App.
875, 903, 371 P.3d 61 (2016). Under RCW 26.09.191(3)(b) and (e), a court may preclude
or limit any provisions of a parenting plan if it finds “[a] long-term emotional or physical
impairment which interferes with the parent’s performance of parenting functions,” or
5