Halls v. Arden

No. 30761-8-II (Wash. Ct. App. February 8, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55807

Description

Washington Appellate Court Reverses Custody Modification and Contempt Order Against Unrepresented Mother But Declines to Appoint Counsel in Modification Proceeding

Abstract

The Washington Court of Appeals reversed lower court orders modifying the parenting plan and finding appellant mother in contempt, but it declined to order appointment of counsel in custody modification proceedings. Under the parties’ parenting plan, mother had primary physical custody; respondent-appellee father had visitation. Due to an eviction mother took children out of state temporarily and failed to deliver them to father as scheduled. Father moved for contempt but not to modify the parenting plan. Mother appeared pro se; the court found her in contempt, ordered her jailed, and set a show-cause hearing on transferring physical custody to father. Subsequent proceedings resulted in another finding of contempt, a final judgment modifying the parenting plan to award father sole custody, and a ten-year “temporary” restraining order against mother. A public defender appointed to represent mother on the contempt issue withdrew as to the issue of parenting plan modification. On appeal, mother challenged the most recent contempt order, parenting plan, and temporary order; she also argued that due process required appointment of counsel in modification proceedings. The court ruled that entry of the modified parenting plan violated a state statute allowing modification only upon the filing of a petition and findings by the court of substantially changed circumstances and that modification was in the child’s best interest; father had never filed such a petition. Agreeing with mother that the parenting plan modification was impermissible, the court also vacated the temporary order. The court said that the request for appointed counsel was premature since the children were living with mother again and father had not appeared in the appeal; the court questioned “whether a real dispute still exists between the parties.” Appellant mother has filed a motion to publish the opinion, on the grounds that it clarifies a principle of law and that a clear statement of the right to counsel is of great importance.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Appellant represented by Carol Vaughn, Jason Vail, Northwest Justice Project, 401 Second Ave. S, Suite 407, Seattle, WA 98104 (telephone number: 206.464.1519).
Docket Date
2005-02-08 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: