In re Marriage of Christopher

• Decision Date: 02 November 2021
• Docket Number: 54878-0-II,54208-1-II
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of: ROGER WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER, Respondent, v. CONNIE SUE CHRISTOPHER, Appellant.

In the Matter of the Marriage of: ROGER WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER, Respondent, v. CONNIE SUE CHRISTOPHER, Appellant.

Nos. 54208-1-II, 54878-0-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

November 2, 2021

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

WORSWICK, J.

In this highly-litigated dissolution case, Connie Christopher appeals the 2019 parenting plan, child support order, and final divorce order entered on dissolution of her marriage with Roger. ^[1] Connie also appeals a May 2020 contempt order entered against her for disobeying the parenting plan. The trial court appointed Dr. Kirk Johnson to conduct a parenting evaluation and he submitted a report to the court. Connie hired an expert who testified that Dr. Johnson's report was flawed. The parenting plan the trial court entered followed Dr. Johnson's recommendations. Connie argues that the trial court erred (1) when it relied on Dr Johnson's report because it abdicated its role as a the fact-finder to Dr. Johnson; (2) when it relied on Dr Johnson's biased and irredeemably flawed report; (3) in finding Connie in contempt because the order was the result of the flawed parenting plan; and (4) when it imputed income to Connie to determine child support. We find no error and affirm.^[2]

FACTS

I. Background

Connie and Roger Christopher married in 1993 and separated on April 20, 2017. The couple have ten children, six of whom were minors at the time of dissolution and subject to the parenting plan Connie challenges here. The three youngest children are triplet boys whom the Christophers adopted in 2014. The three older children subject to the parenting plan are daughters; the eldest was a teenager at the time of dissolution. Earlier temporary parenting plans also included an older daughter, who turned 18 during dissolution proceedings.

During the marriage, Roger worked as a construction contractor and rental property owner and manager. He also earned income from farming. Connie did not work outside the home during the course of the marriage.

The couple adopted the triplets in 2014. Shortly thereafter, Connie and the older daughters began attending a different church than the one the family previously attended together.

In November 2016, Roger left the family home with the triplet boys and left Connie a letter stating his plans for separation. Roger and Connie briefly reconciled during Thanksgiving 2016, and then Roger and the triplet boys returned to the marital home in early 2017.

The Christophers sold the marital home on March 31, 2017. Roger left the house with the triplet boys on April 5, an arrangement which Connie testified she did not agree to. Connie moved out of the house on April 20. From April to September 2017, Connie worked at multiple jobs, including at a blueberry field, catering, working at an amphitheater, and decorating.^[3] Roger filed for dissolution in September 2017.

II. Parenting Evaluator Report

In December 2017, the trial court established a temporary parenting plan and spousal and child support order. The December 2017 temporary parenting plan named Roger the primary parent for the triplet boys and Connie the primary parent for the minor daughters. The temporary parenting plan also provided for visitation for each parent.

The trial court appointed psychologist Dr. Kirk Johnson as a Parenting Evaluator/ Investigator. The court instructed Dr. Johnson investigate "[a]ll issues related to making a parenting plan for these children. Abandonment, alienation, or neglect by [Roger] and [Connie]. Domestic violence of [Roger] and [Connie]. Mental health issues of [Roger] and [Connie]. Any other issues discovered that could affect the safety of the children." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 14 (emphasis in original). The trial court also appointed Dr. Harry Dudley to conduct reunification counseling.

Dr. Johnson submitted a report to the trial court and parties in March 2019. Dr. Johnson conducted his research between 2017 and 2019. He based his report on interviews with Connie, Roger, and most of the children, and administered a psychological personality test to the parents.

Dr. Johnson also contacted Dr. Dudley and reviewed more than 30 documents and declarations related to the family and parenting plan.

Dr. Johnson's report stated:

Roger believes that he did contribute to the breakup of the relationship. He feels he was not patient and may not have always 'listened.' Connie could provide no way she contributed to the breakup of the relationship. ...

This case has been remarkable for the amount of animosity and vitriol expressed by Connie Christopher toward Roger. She essentially has said that she has never loved him and made a fundamental mistake in marrying him. She describes him as abusive in all regards, in fact adding 6 categories of abuse to a form filled out by custody litigants that already lists 11 areas of possible concern. She indicates that he has sexual[ly] mistreated her, physically mistreated her, socially mistreated her and spiritually mistreated her.... ...

Roger Christopher denies any abusive conduct. He believes that Connie uses conflict abusively and herself has some form of long-term emotional impairment. He feels she is rather passive aggressive and believes that she has actively worked to negatively impact the relationship he has with the children, particularly the girls. He feels that as the marriage progressed she seemed to try to keep him out of the children's lives....

CP at 543-44.

Dr. Johnson noted that both parents sought to be the primary parent. He summarized the results of the psychological testing:

The results of Roger's testing were basically unremarkable. Connie's testing was consistent with her overall presentation. Her testing suggest a high degree of anger, a rather brittle lack of personal awareness, paranoid sensitivity and overactivity, along with a tendency to project all problem[s] externally. Connie essentially does not see herself as contributing to this problem, consistent with some of the written material returned.

Interviews of the children, including the older boys and the younger girls are consistent with concerns over alienating behavior on Connie's part. Both boys addressed such behavior directly, observing conduct that raises concerns over her ability to act in a manner that is not alienating from Roger. The two older girls interviewed acted like children who were aligning with one parent against the other related to influence, intentional or not, from that parent. They were non-specific in complaints about their father and complaints were ultimately rather trivial. There were statements made suggesting direct influence.

CP at 544.

Dr. Johnson then assessed potential residential provisions by applying each of the factors listed in RCW 26.09.187.^[4] He explained that to improve the children's relationships with each other and the adults, "[a] plan should be in place that allows for more normal or at least more extensive contact between the siblings." CP at 546. Dr. Johnson noted concern that the wishes of the older daughters-who expressed a preference to remain with Connie-were influenced in an unhealthy way from their mother.

In examining possible limitations on the residential time under RCW 26.09.191, ^[5] Dr. Johnson concluded that although Connie raised the issue of abuse by Roger, he found no evidence to support her allegations. Thus, Dr. Johnson concluded his report with a recommendation for a parenting plan:

It is recommended that the girls go to a week on week off type schedule. This will substantially increase their time not only with their father, but also with their younger brothers. If Connie attempts to in any way poison this change in schedule it may be necessary to actually reduce her contact with the children to some level of supervision.

The boys should remain with Roger at this point, while visiting with their mother on the weekends shared with the sisters. Roger thus remains the primary parent of the triplets, with little change to their schedule. As Connie demonstrates her capacity to understand her contribution to difficulties and manage her conduct, this should be reevaluated to increase the time she has with the boys.

A standard alternating holiday schedule is suggested. Each parent should be allowed two two-week blocks in summer for planned holiday. These blocks might be altered to fit individual schedules if both parties agree.

The appointment of a parenting coordinator is considered, but not yet recommended....

CP at 547-48.

After Dr. Johnson sent his report to the parties, Roger moved the trial court to adopt Dr. Johnson's recommendations and adjust the residential schedule and child support. On May 24, 2019, the parties then stipulated to an interim parenting plan that kept most of the provisions of the December 2017 temporary parenting plan intact but added overnight visits with the children during the parents' weekend visitation time. The interim plan also modified the Memorial Day and summer schedule slightly. The court reserved ruling on child support until trial.

III. Trial and Expert Testimony

The case proceeded to trial in August 2019. During the three-day trial, Dr. Johnson, Dr. Dudley, and both parents testified. None of the children testified. Connie called Dr. Landon Poppleton to testify regarding Dr. Johnson's report.

A. Dr. Johnson's Testimony

At trial, Dr. Johnson explained the methodology of the psychological testing he performed and the test results summarizing his report. He noted that although "Roger was able to recognize that he did make some contribution to the difficulties in the family .... It was a little remarkable to me . . . where Connie was not able to identify any way, whatsoever, that she contributed to any of the problems in the family." 1...