In re Black
| Decision Date | 06 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 92994-7,92994-7 |
| Citation | 188 Wash.2d 114,392 P.3d 1041 |
| Parties | IN RE the MARRIAGE OF: Rachelle K. BLACK, Petitioner, and Charles W. Black, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Amanda J. Beane, Kelly F. Moser, Julie Wilson-McNerney, Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900, Seattle, WA, 98101-3099, David J. Ward, Legal Voice, 907 Pine St., Ste. 500, Seattle, WA, 98101-1818, for Petitioner.
Kenneth Wendell Masters, Shelby R. Frost Lemmel, Masters Law Group PLLC, 241 Madison Ave. N., Bainbridge Island, WA, 98110-1811, for Respondent.
Robert S. Chang, Lorraine K. Bannai, Jessica Levin, Seattle University School of Law, 901 12th Ave., Seattle, WA, 98122-4411, Matthew J. Segal, Alanna Peterson, Pacifica Law Group LLP, 1191 2nd Ave., Ste. 2000, Seattle, WA, 98101-3404, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law & Equality.
Nancy Lynn Talner, Attorney at Law, 901 5th Ave., Ste. 630, Seattle, WA, 98164-2008, Jill Mullins-Cannon, Justice & Equality Legal Services, PLLC, 600 Winslow Way E., Ste. 232, Bainbridge Island, WA, 98110-2417, Lenora M. Lapidus, Leslie Cooper, Gillian Thomas, American Civil Liberties Union, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY, 10004, Daniel Mach, Heather L. Weaver, ACLU Foundation, 915 15th Street N.W., 6th Floor, Washington, DC, 20005, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.
Raegen Nicole Rasnic, Skellenger Bender PS, 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 3401, Seattle, WA, 98101-2630, Matthew J. Segal, Alanna Peterson, Pacifica Law Group LLP, 1191 2nd Ave., Ste. 2000, Seattle, WA, 98101-3404, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).
Raegen Nicole Rasnic, Skellenger Bender PS, 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 3401, Seattle, WA, 98101-2630, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Seattle University School of Law Professor Julie Shapiro.
Raegen Nicole Rasnic, Skellenger Bender PS, 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 3401, Seattle, WA, 98101-2630, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).
Raegen Nicole Rasnic, Skellenger Bender PS, 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 3401, Seattle, WA, 98101-2630, Matthew J. Segal, Alanna Peterson, Pacifica Law Group LLP, 1191 2nd Ave., Ste. 2000, Seattle, WA, 98101-3404, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of QLAW Association of Washignton (QLAW).
¶1 Rachelle and Charles Black were married for nearly 20 years and have three sons. They raised their children in a conservative Christian church and sent them to private, Christian schools. In 2011, Rachelle1 told Charles that she is a lesbian. In the order of dissolution, the trial court designated Charles as the primary residential parent. The final parenting plan also awarded Charles sole decision-making authority regarding the children's education and religious upbringing. But the record shows that the trial court considered Rachelle's sexual orientation as a factor when it fashioned the final parenting plan. Further, improper bias influenced the proceedings. This bias casts doubt on the trial court's entire ruling, and we are not confident the trial court ensured a fair proceeding by maintaining a neutral attitude regarding Rachelle's sexual orientation. Accordingly, we reverse.
¶2 Rachelle and Charles Black married in July 1994. When they married, Rachelle and Charles were 19 and 21 years old, respectively. Both Rachelle and Charles worked for Rachelle's parents at the parents' business. When Rachelle and Charles had their first child in 1999, they agreed Rachelle would stop working and be a stay-at-home parent while Charles continued to work. Rachelle and Charles have three sons together, ages 17, 14, and 9.2 At the time of trial, they lived near Graham, Washington. For most of their marriage, Rachelle was the primary caretaker of the children, and Charles was the primary wage earner.
¶3 The Blacks' Christian background was prominent at trial. Rachelle, Charles, and the children attended a "conservative Christian" church. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 73. Rachelle's parents are elders at the church, and Rachelle had been attending the church for most of her life. Kelly Theriot Leblanc, the guardian ad litem (GAL) assigned to this case, testified that the "family attends a church where the teachings are that homosexuality is a sin." 1 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 36.
¶4 Consistent with their beliefs, Rachelle and Charles agreed to send their three children to small, private, Christian schools in the Tacoma area. Charles testified they chose the schools mainly because of their faith-based teaching: 2 RP at 289. Jennifer Knight, the children's therapist, described their upbringing as "a very dogmatic fundamentalist situation, both at school and at home." 2 RP at 350.
¶5 In December 2011, Rachelle told Charles that she believed she might be " ‘gay.’ " 3 RP at 409. Charles "told [Rachelle] to go and explore and figure out what [she] needed to figure out." Id.
¶6 Rachelle's recognition of her sexual orientation altered the status quo at the Black household, and trying to maintain the status quo for the sake of the children became increasingly difficult. Although Rachelle and Charles continued to live in the same house, Rachelle began sleeping in a basement room after Charles allegedly sexually assaulted her, which he denies, and after he told friends, family, and church members about her sexual orientation without her permission. Rachelle stopped attending the family church, while Charles and the children continued to attend. Around the same time, Rachelle began a romantic relationship with a woman and began spending more time away from home. Rachelle testified that she tried "not to be gone more than one night a week." 1 RP at 113. Rachelle noted that Charles was also gone from the home at times during this period, but she admitted that she was gone more than he was.3
¶7 Charles took on more parenting responsibilities than he had in the past. For example, he received permission from his employers (Rachelle's parents) to adjust his work schedule so that he could leave work before the children were released from school. Charles testified that he typically drove their oldest son to the bus stop every morning and picked up the other children from school in the afternoon. Although Rachelle still typically cooked dinner, she and Charles split other household duties like cleaning, laundry, and grocery shopping. Rachelle believed Charles' increased participation in household duties was intended to undermine her relationship with the children.4
¶8 In May 2013, Rachelle filed for dissolution. The trial occurred in August 2014, nearly three years after Rachelle first told Charles about her sexual orientation. In addition to Rachelle and Charles, the main witnesses at trial were Knight (the children's therapist) and Leblanc (the GAL).
¶9 Knight observed the children during 11 appointments between January and July 2014. Knight described the children as "very sheltered" and said that "they don't really have a grasp of what's going on in the real world." 2 RP at 346-47. For example, "they're uncomfortable talking about evolution." 2 RP at 347. Knight believed a transition from the children's "sheltered school" to a public school district would be a struggle because public schools are "very worldly compared to these children." 2 RP at 347-48. Knight believed that from a therapeutic perspective, "the less change that these children have to deal with[,] the better." 2 RP at 348.
¶10 Because Rachelle and Charles had not disclosed Rachelle's sexual orientation to their children, Knight was the first person to tell them that their mother is gay. Knight testified that the 15 year old at the time, was "flat" upon hearing the news, and Knight thought he "was still processing it," 2 RP at 349; that the 12 year old "snuggled up to his mom kind of indicating, you know, I'm going to love you no matter what," id. ; and that the 7 year old was too young to understand. Knight believed "the children are starting to get more used to the idea that their mother, you know, is in a relationship with a female." 2 RP at 350.
¶11 Knight's primary concern was for the children to be in a "stable environment that's going to be stable long term." 2 RP at 352. Due to the children's upbringing, they did not understand the concept of divorce. Therefore, Rachelle and Charles' separation "is a major change considering the background of these children," and Knight believed the best outcome for the children would be a stable environment that "minimize[s] ... future changes." Id. Knight recommended Rachelle's partner have no contact with the children for the time being.
¶12 Knight testified that she believed Charles was the more stable parent. Knight noted that Rachelle was unemployed, did not have a plan for future housing, and relied on her partner for support: 2 RP at 352-53. On the other hand, Knight stated that Charles "has a history of employment and being a good provider, so obviously he is a stable parent." 2 RP at 353. She testified that the children "have reported that over the last couple of years they've seen [Rachelle] a lot less and that they have spent more time with their father." 2 RP at 362. Despite "some concern about him not being as active in the past with the children because he was the main provider," the children reported that Charles "has been more part of their daily life" in recent years. 2 RP at 353.
¶13 Leblanc, the GAL, shared many of Knight's concerns. Leblanc testified that several "collateral sources" indicated Rachelle had been "absent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weisberger v. Weisberger
... ... Additionally, to the extent the mother's sexual orientation was raised at the hearing, we note that courts must remain neutral toward such matters, such that the focus remains on the continued best interests and welfare of the children ( see In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wash.2d 114, 130, 392 P.3d 1041, 10491050 ; 154 A.D.3d 51 see also Matter of Paul C. v. Tracy C., 209 A.D.2d 955, 956, 622 N.Y.S.2d 159 ; Anonymous v. Anonymous, 120 A.D.2d 983, 983984, 503 N.Y.S.2d 466 ; Guinan v. Guinan, 102 A.D.2d 963, 964, 477 N.Y.S.2d 830 ; Di Stefano v. Di ... ...
-
State v. B.O.J.
... ... SOC. JUST. 803, 816 (2015) ). 2 And, in my view, "bias found its way into the final judgment " and the trial courts reliance on the report 194 Wash.2d 333 appears to "cast doubt on the trial courts entire ruling." In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wash.2d 114, 135, 137, 392 P.3d 1041 (2017) (quoting Jacoby v. Jacoby, 763 So.2d 410, 414 (Fla. 2000) ). 44 With these observations, I concur. MADSEN, J. (dissenting) 45 In this juvenile disposition, the trial court found that either B.O.J.s treatment needs or the leniency of the standard ... ...
-
Clare v. Clare
...conflicting evidence "'even though we may disagree with the trial court in either regard.'" In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wn.2d 114, 127, 392 P.3d 1041 (2017) (quoting In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 740, 513 P.2d 831 (1973)). Third, Mr. Clare fails to relate his issues on appeal to his......
-
Cornell v. Codekas
... ... to persuade a rational fair-minded person that the premise is ... true. In re Marriage of Akon , 160 Wn.App. 48, 57, ... 248 P.3d 94 (2011). The trial court's findings of fact ... are verities on appeal as long as they are supported by ... substantial evidence. In re Marriage of Black , 188 ... Wn.2d 114, 127, 392 P.3d 1041 (2017). Unchallenged ... conclusions of law become the law of the case. In re ... Marriage of Laidlaw , 2 Wn.App. 2d 381, 386, 409 P.3d ... 1184, review denied , 190 Wn.2d 1022 (2018) ... We do ... not substitute our judgment for the ... ...
-
§65.04 Appellate Review in Practice
...considerations or were made without adequate consideration of the proper statutory factors. IN RE MARRIAGE OF BLACK, 188 Wn.2d 114, 392 P.3d 1041 (2017). The Supreme Court reversed a parenting plan that placed the parties' three sons primarily with the father, awarded him sole decision maki......
-
§47.03 Mandatory Form
...not favor either parent's religious beliefs without a clear showing of harm to the children. In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wn.2d 114, 135, 392 P.3d 1041 (2017). "The constitutional right to free exercise of religion does not allow sole decision making in this area, even if the parents are no......