Bluhm v. Petronave
| Decision Date | 12 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | 52833-9-II |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | DAVID D. BLUHM, Appellant, v. SAMANTHA L. PETRONAVE, Respondent. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
David D. Bluhm appeals the trial court's final parenting plan child support order, and order denying his motion for reconsideration involving his 12 year old daughter, EP-B entered after a relocation hearing. Bluhm contends (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration because the guardian ad litem (GAL) changed his recommendation during the relocation hearing; (2) the trial court erred by entering a parenting plan with inherent conflicts; (3) the trial court erred in not allowing Bluhm to argue for a graduated or step increase in his child support payment, in not limiting his child support obligation to 45 percent of his income, and in not matching the child support order to the trial court's oral ruling; (4) the trial court erred in not allocating joint decision-making authority for EP-B's religious upbringing; (5) the trial court erred in not setting forth a visitation schedule for special occasions; and (6) the trial court erred in allowing Bluhm to be served with proposed orders without mandatory warnings. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS[1]
Bluhm and Samantha Starkey (formerly known as Petronave) are the parents of EP-B, [2]born in 2008. In 2011, the parties entered into an agreed parenting plan and child support order. At the time, they both lived in the Tacoma area.
The 2011 parenting plan designated Starkey as the primary residential parent, but the parenting plan provided that EP-B would reside with Bluhm every other weekend. The parenting plan also included a schedule for special occasions; it provided that EP-B would be with the mother on Mother's Day; the father on Father's Day; and with each parent on an alternating basis for EP-B's birthday. The parenting plan further stated that "[e]ach parent may exercise their religious preferences with the Child." Clerks Papers (CP) at 22. In the 2011 child support order, the trial court calculated Bluhm's monthly income as $400 because he was involuntarily underemployed and Starkey's monthly income as $1, 482. The trial court ordered Bluhm to pay $50 per month in child support to Starkey.
In May 2018, Starkey filed a notice of intent to relocate to Albany Oregon. Bluhm objected and requested that the parenting plan be modified by appointing him the primary residential parent. The trial court appointed a GAL.
On August 9, 2018, the GAL recommend that EP-B reside full time with Bluhm during the school year and with Starkey during the summer. The GAL, however, noted that Starkey and EP-B were closely attached and that E-PB "adores [the mother] and has indicated that [the child] would like to spend the majority of time with [the] mother." CP at 50.
The matter proceeded to a hearing.[3] The trial court granted Starkey's request to relocate with EP-B, finding that Bluhm failed to meet his burden in demonstrating that the detrimental effect of a relocation outweighed the benefit of the change in location to child and the relocating parent. The trial court also found that the agreed parenting plan from 2011 served the child's "best interests" and that there was no reason for the Court to disrupt Starkey being the primary residential parent. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Sept. 4, 2018) at 6, 15.
In its oral ruling, the trial court noted that the GAL was "pretty unequivocal" about EP-B's preference to remain with the mother. VRP (Sept. 4, 2018) at 7. The trial court also noted that the GAL indicated that EP-B wanted Starkey to be "the primary residential parent." VRP (Sept. 4, 2018) at 7. Later, the trial court stated that it was "interpreting [the GAL's] testimony to favor mother" and that if the trial court was "wrong about that, the other evidence presented in this case certainly [favors] . . . Starkey remaining as the primary residential parent." VRP (Sept. 4, 2018) at 15. The trial court ordered that there "will be joint decision-making." VRP (Sept. 4, 2018) at 18.
Following the trial court's oral ruling, Starkey drafted proposed final orders and provided a copy to Bluhm. Bluhm objected to the final orders.
At the hearing for entry of final orders, Bluhm expressed frustration that on the "fourth day of trial [] the [GAL] flipped his recommendation." VRP (Sept. 28, 2018) at 11.
In its final parenting plan, the trial court ordered that EP-B reside the majority of the time with Starkey and reside with Bluhm one weekend per month from Friday at 5:00 pm until Sunday at 6:00 pm. Bluhm would provide Starkey with his preference of weekends. The parenting plan also set forth a detailed list of holidays, designated which parent would spend the holiday with EP-B, and designated at what time the visitation would begin and end. This included Memorial Day Fourth of July, and Labor Day. The trial court also ordered that during the summer when EP-B is out of school, EP-B will alternate between the mother and father's house every two weeks, starting the week school gets out and ending the final week of summer.
As for child support, the trial court imputed Bluhm's net monthly income as $4, 369 and Starkey's net monthly income as $2, 693. The trial court ordered Bluhm to pay Starkey $606.39 per month in child support for EP-B and $749.07 per month when EP-B turns 12 years old.
Bluhm filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. Bluhm appeals.
While Bluhm does not object specifically to the relocation order he raises several challenges to the trial court's 2018 parenting plan, child support order, and the trial court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. We disagree with Bluhm's challenges and affirm.
We review a trial court's fashioning of a final parenting plan for an abuse of discretion; the trial court's discretion in this area is "broad." In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23, 35, 283 P.3d 546 (2012), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 1090 (2013). "A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons." In re Custody of Halls, 126 Wn.App. 599, 606, 109 P.3d 15 (2005). A decision is manifestly unreasonable if the decision is outside the range of acceptable choices based on the facts and applicable legal standard. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence to determine whether we would reach a different conclusion. In re Marriage of McNaught, 189 Wn.App. 545, 561, 359 P.3d 811 (2015), review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1005 (2016).
Similarly, we review child support orders for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Schnurman, 178 Wn.App. 634, 638, 316 P.3d 514 (2013), review denied, 180 Wn.2d 1010 (2014). And we review an order denying a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Phillips v. Greco, 7 Wn.App. 2d 1, 9, 433 P.3d 509 (2018).
Bluhm first contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for reconsideration based on CR 59(a)(3) and CR 59(a)(8) because "the GAL ¶ip-flopping his decision on the fourth day of trial was traumatic and confounding." Br. of Appellant at 3. We disagree
CR 59(a)(3) states that a verdict may be vacated if there has been an "accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against" and it "materially affect[s] the substantial rights of [the aggrieved party]." And CR 59(a)(8) states that a verdict may be vacated if there was an "[e]rror in law occurring at the trial and objected to at the time by the party making the application."
Bluhm failed to designate the verbatim report of proceedings for review; thus, we are unable to review what took place on the fourth day of trial when Bluhm alleges the GAL "flip-flopp[ed]" in his decision and whether Bluhm objected. Br. of Appellant at 3. Generally, failure to provide an adequate record precludes us from reviewing an issue on appeal. See Stiles v. Kearney, 168 Wn.App 250, 259, 277 P.3d 9 (), review denied, 175 Wn.2d 1016 (2012). However, the record provided for our review shows that the GAL noted that EP-B "adores [the mother] and has indicated that [the child] would like to spend the majority of time with [the] mother." CP at 50. Also, the trial court, in its oral ruling, stated that the GAL was "pretty unequivocal" about EP-B's preference to remain with the mother and that the GAL indicated that EP-B wanted Starkey to be "the primary residential parent." VRP (Sept. 4, 2018) at 7. The trial court then stated that it was "interpreting [the GAL's] testimony to favor mother" and that if the trial court was "wrong about that, the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial