In the Matter of the Guardianship of: L.A.M. & E.M. ( 2024 )

FILED
APRIL 16, 2024
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 Guardianship of )
) No. 39085-3-III
L.A.M., ) Consolidated with
)
)
In the Matter of the Guardianship of ) No. 39086-3-III
)
E.M., ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
STAAB, J. — Randall Meek, Sr., and Stephanie Meek (Meeks) appeal the trial
court’s decision denying their petition for minor guardianship of L.A.M. and E.M., and
instead granting Ellen Barnett’s petition as guardian of the two children. They argue the
court’s conclusion that granting Barnett’s petition was in the best interest of the children
is not supported by the findings. Under the deferential standard, we conclude that the
court did not abuse its discretion. The unchallenged oral findings support the conclusion
that keeping the children with Barnett was in the childrens’ best interest.
FACTS
The following facts are unchallenged.
No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III)
In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.
This appeal concerns two minor children, L.A.M., age 9, and E.M., age 4, at the
time of trial. The children have the same mother. L.A.M.’s father is Randall Meek, Jr.
E.M.’s father is Arturo Martinez; however, it is undisputed that Martinez has not
participated in E.M.’s life and Randall Meek, Jr. was E.M.’s father figure.
Ellen Barnett is the maternal grandmother to the children. Barnett sought
guardianship of L.A.M. and E.M. The Meeks intervened in Barnett’s petitions because
they also wanted guardianship of L.A.M. and E.M.1
All three biological parents recognized their limitations and consented to the
Meeks being named as guardians to their children. Each parent signed a “Parent’s
Consent to Minor Guardianship” form. E.M. was living with Barnett in Springdale,
Washington since February 2017, and L.A.M. was living with her since April 2013.
The court granted Barnett’s petition for minor guardianship of L.A.M. In doing
so, the court found that L.A.M. had lived with Barnett for most of her nine years of life.
For the first few years, L.A.M. only stayed there sporadically but has now stayed with her
since April 2013. L.A.M. has fully integrated and bonded with extended relatives that
live in Springdale. She is close with two of her aunts that are close in age and has
1
Simultaneously, the Meeks filed their own petition seeking guardianship of the
oldest child, N.M. Barnett intervened in their petition seeking to be named N.M.’s
guardian. N.M., who has special needs, has been living with the Meeks in Deer Park,
Washington since the summer of 2016. The court granted the Meeks’ petition for minor
guardianship of N.M., and that order is not on appeal.
2
No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III)
In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.
attended a small school in Springdale where she is doing well and has made a lot of
friends. In addition, she is involved in extracurricular activities like little league and
cheerleading.
While the Meeks accused Barnett of drug use, Barnett denied any drug use and
provided a negative drug test. The court found the allegations were not credible and
declined to remove L.A.M. from her care. Although the biological parents consented to
the Meeks being L.A.M.’s guardian, the court found that “uprooting [L.A.M.] from all
that she has ever known, including the extended family that she has grown up with, is not
in her best interest.” Rep. of Proc. (RP) (May 26, 2022) at 158. Accordingly, it granted
Barnett’s petition and proposed residential schedule while denying the Meeks’ petition
for guardianship of L.A.M.
The court also granted Barnett’s petition for minor guardianship of E.M. The
testimony reflected that E.M. is a bright three-year-old boy who is integrated into
Barnett’s home with his extended relatives and is very close with his sister. He has not
been integrated as long as L.A.M., but it is all he has known. In addition, he has been on
a long waitlist to get into preschool, participates in wrestling, and plays tee ball in
Springdale. Although the biological parents consented to the Meeks’ guardianship of
E.M., the court found uprooting him “from all that he’s ever known, including the
extended family that he’s grown up living with, is not in his best interest.” RP (May 26,
3
No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III)
In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.
2022) at 160. Accordingly, the court granted Barnett’s petition and proposed residential
schedule while denying the Meeks’ petition.
The court allowed visitation upon its denial of the competing minor guardianship
petitions, allowing the Meeks visitation every other weekend from 3:00 p.m. on Friday to
Sunday at 5:00 p.m. In addition, the court noted it knew the Meeks were not happy, but it
“had a big concern with uprooting the children from the routine that they have had for
years.” RP (May 26, 2022) at 162. The court did not “hear anything that indicated that it
would be [ ] unsafe” and it found it would be far more disruptive to take them away from
what they have become accustomed to and integrated into their life. RP (May 26, 2022)
at 162.
The Meeks appeal.
ANALYSIS
In 2019, the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective
Arrangements Act was adopted by the legislature in Washington. See ch. 11.130 RCW.
Part of this statute outlines requirements for the appointment of a guardian for a minor
child if nominated by a parent:
(a) The court shall appoint a person nominated as guardian by a parent
of the minor in a probated will or other record unless the court finds the
appointment is contrary to the best interest of the minor. Any “other
record” must be a declaration or other sworn document and may include a
4
No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III)
In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.
power of attorney or other sworn statement as to the care, custody, or
control of the minor child.
RCW 11.130.215(2)(a).
The statute does not address a standard of review for a trial court’s decision on
whom to appoint as a child’s guardian, however, a recent Division One case determined
that it would be abuse of discretion. See In re Guardianship of L.C., __ Wn. App. 2d __,
538 P.3d 309, 313 (2023) (noting that who should be appointed as a child’s guardian is a
fact-intensive inquiry that trial courts are necessarily in a better position than the
appellate courts to decide). A court abuses its discretion if its decision is “unreasonable”
or based on “‘untenable grounds or reasons.’” In re Marriage of Abbess, 23 Wn. App.
2d 479, 484, 516 P.3d 443 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re
Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884, 893, 93 P.3d 124 (2004)). A court’s decision will
be considered “unreasonable” if it is not within the range of acceptable choices, given the
facts and applicable legal standard. Id. A court’s decision is based on “untenable
grounds” if the factual findings are not supported by the record and “untenable reasons”
if it is based on the incorrect standard or the established facts do not meet the
requirements of the appropriate standard. Id.The Meeks contend that the court abused its discretion because both biological
parents of L.A.M. and E.M. gave their consent for the Meeks to be the guardians of the
5
No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III)
In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.
children. Although not in the form of a declaration as required by statute, they argue that
the consents were accepted by the court.
As noted above, RCW 11.130.215(2)(a) states that “[t]he court shall appoint a
person nominated as guardian by a parent of the minor in a probated will or other record
unless the court finds the appointment is contrary to the best interest of the minor.”
(emphasis added). By using the mandatory word “shall” the statute requires the court to
appoint the parent-nominated guardian, but by including the word “unless” the statute
imposes a condition under which the first action may not take place. L.C., 538 P.3d at
314. In other words, the court can only deviate from the guardian nominated by the
parents if it finds the appointment is contrary to the child’s best interest. Id.
Generally, when a statute has mandated factual findings, they must be
“‘sufficiently specific to permit meaningful review.’” Id. (quoting State v. Holland, 98
Wn.2d 507, 517, 656 P.2d 1056 (1983)). While the degree of particularity will depend on
the type of case, they should be “sufficient to indicate the factual base[s] for the ultimate
conclusions.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Groff v. Dep’t Lab. & Indus., 65 Wn.2d
35, 40, 395 P.2d 633 (1964)). However, if the written findings are not sufficient, they
may be supplemented by the oral decision or statements in the record. Id.The Meeks argue that the court failed to provide written findings that appointing
the Meeks would not be in the children’s best interest. While it is true the court’s written
findings are vague and essentially recite that it is in the best interest of the children to
6
No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III)
In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.
appoint Barnett as their guardian, the court made detailed oral findings. The Meeks do
not assign error to any of the court’s oral findings. Instead, they argue that the findings
focused on facts showing that the biological parents were unable to parent instead of
focusing on the good qualities of the Meeks. We disagree with this characterization of
the court’s findings. It is clear from the court’s oral decision that it was focused on the
children’s situation. The court provided detailed findings on L.A.M. and E.M.’s social,
scholastic, and family environment.
The sufficiency of findings under RCW 11.130.215(2)(a) was recently addressed
in In re Guardianship of L.C. In L.C., the mother’s cousins filed an emergency minor
guardianship petition for L.C. The mother and father objected, and during the pendency
of the petition nominated several other people as potential guardians. Following a trial,
the court granted the cousins’ petition for guardianship. The court’s only findings
pertaining to the guardians nominated by the parents was that they had not been vetted
and seemed to be late-coming suggestions. Id. at 314. There were no findings that
appointing the nominated guardians would not be in the child’s best interest and thus, the
court’s decision to grant the cousins’ petition was an abuse of discretion. Id. at 315.
The findings in this case are more comprehensive and explicit than the findings
entered in L.C. Specifically, the court made identical findings for both L.A.M. and E.M.
that “[a]lthough the biological parents consented to the paternal grandparents [Meeks]
being the guardians, uprooting [L.A.M. and E.M.] from all that [they have] ever known,
7
No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III)
In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.
including the extended family that [they have] grown up with, is not in [their] best
interest.” RP (May 26, 2022) at 158. This finding is sufficient to support the trial court’s
conclusion that Barrett’s petition should be granted and the Meeks’ petition should be
denied.
Finally, the Meeks argue the residential schedule must be revisited because it was
based on the erroneous guardianship decision of the court. Because we affirm the trial
court’s decision on guardianship, we conclude that the residential schedule does not need
to be revised.
Affirmed.
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:
_________________________________
Fearing, J.
_________________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.
8