In re Marriage of Rideout
| Decision Date | 02 October 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 72366-4.,72366-4. |
| Citation | 77 P.3d 1174,150 Wash.2d 337 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF John Christopher RIDEOUT, Respondent, and Sara Dixon Rideout, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Ascher & Denton, Melissa Denton, Tumwater, for Petitioner. Connolly Tacon & Meserve, Charles Szurszewski, Olympia, Wiggins Law Office, Charles Wiggins, Kenneth Masters, Bainbridge Is, for Respondent.
Matthew I. Cooper on behalf of Washington State National Organization for Women, amicus curiae.
Bryan P. Harnetiaux, Catherine Wright Smith and Debra L. Stephens on behalf of Washington State Trial Lawyers Association Foundation, amicus curiae.
Christopher Rideout initiated a contempt proceeding in superior court against his former wife, Sara Rideout. In it he alleged that Sara demonstrated a pattern of interference with residential time with their children to which Christopher was entitled pursuant to a court approved parenting plan and a subsequent court order establishing a summer residential schedule. After a hearing, the superior court held Sara in contempt for what it concluded was her "bad faith" failure to comply with the terms of the court order relating to summer residential time. Sara obtained review of that decision by the Court of Appeals, Division Two, which affirmed the superior court's contempt order. Sara thereafter petitioned for review by this court and we granted her petition. In re Marriage of Rideout, 147 Wash.2d 1008, 54 P.3d 1212 (2002).
We affirm the Court of Appeals, holding that: (1) notwithstanding the fact that the submissions at the contempt proceeding were entirely documentary, the superior court's findings of fact should be given deference and evaluated to determine if there was substantial evidence to support them, and (2) a parent may be held in contempt, pursuant to RCW 26.09.160, for failure to make reasonable efforts to require a child to visit the other parent as required by a parenting plan and a court order establishing residential time.
On April 18, 1995, Christopher Rideout filed a petition in Thurston County Superior Court seeking dissolution of his marriage to Sara Rideout. During the course of the Rideout's marriage, a son, Christopher (Kit) (birth date 7/23/1989), and a daughter, Caroline (birth date 8/1/1987), were born to the Rideouts. Establishing the residential schedule for these children was the focal point of the highly contested dissolution proceeding.
On August 25, 1997, the superior court entered a decree dissolving the Rideout's marriage and approving a permanent parenting plan. The plan provided that Sara was to have the children "the majority of the time," except that Christopher and Sara would alternate weekends with the children. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 7. Concerning the summer residence of the children, the parenting plan provided that Kit and Caroline would reside with Sara except for a four-week period when the children were to be with Christopher. Christopher's summer residential time was to be taken in "one or two blocks of time, at the father's option." CP at 5. The parenting plan called for a continuation of the alternating weekend residential schedule during the summer, except when the children were out of the area during a planned vacation. The plan specified that, in the absence of a contrary agreement between Christopher and Sara, each summer block "shall begin at 5 P.M. on Friday and conclude at 8 P.M. Sunday." CP at 6. Christopher and Sara later agreed that the "blocks of time" would begin on Fridays at 2:30 P.M. as opposed to Fridays at 5 P.M. See CP at 16; see also CP at 14. Transportation of the children for all scheduled residential times was to be provided by "the parent receiving the child(ren)." CP at 7.
The parenting plan also provided that Christopher was to have residential time with Caroline on her birthday in "odd" years. CP at 7. Sara and Christopher later agreed to follow a schedule for special occasions, which included holidays, that is "the opposite of the [schedule] in the parenting plan." CP at 56. Per their agreement, "[Christopher] was to have ... Caroline, for her thirteenth birthday on August 1, 2000." CP at 65; see CP at 56. It is an alternate weekend residential time, Christopher's scheduled residential time with Caroline on her thirteenth birthday, and Christopher's scheduled four-week residential time during the summer of 2000 that are particularly pertinent to the issues in this case.
Beginning on June 18, 2000, Christopher left several telephone messages for Sara in which he set forth the dates he wished to exercise his summer residential time with their children.1 Specifically, he indicated that he had requested "four weeks of visitation with both of my children beginning on July 14, 2000, and continuing for four consecutive weeks." CP at 12. He said that during the third and fourth week of the residential time they would be "out of town" for a family reunion in Idaho. Id. July 14, 2000, was also the first day of a weekend on which Christopher was entitled to residential time with the children, pursuant to the alternate weekend residential time provision of the parenting plan. Christopher followed his telephone calls with a July 11, 2000, letter to Sara, in which he reiterated the dates he wished to have the children with him that summer. Christopher's attorney also sent Sara a letter on July 14, 2000, in which he specified the same dates. In a letter to her attorney dated July 14, 2000, Sara indicated that "[t]he first that [she] heard of Chris[topher's] vacation plans was through voice mail in [her] office which [she] picked up on July 10." CP at 19.
On July 14, 2000, Christopher went to Sara's home to pick up the children for his weekend and summer residential time. Neither Sara nor the children were then at the home. Later that day, Kit called his father who then went back to Sara's house in order to pick him up. When Christopher was at Sara's house collecting Kit, he was told that Caroline was horseback riding and that she would be delivered to Christopher's home later that day. However, Sara telephoned Christopher that day to tell him that Caroline was going to be staying with her instead of going with Christopher. The following day, Christopher again went to Sara's house in an effort to obtain Caroline. Sara's boyfriend answered the door and declined to supply Christopher with any information regarding Caroline's whereabouts.
On July 18, 2000, Christopher sought an order from the Thurston County Superior Court establishing specific dates for his summer residential time. In response, Sara filed a declaration in which she stated that CP at 27. On July 27, 2000, the superior court entered an order which provided that Christopher was to have residential time with Caroline from July 27, 2000, through August 24, 2000. The order also required Sara to transport Caroline to Christopher's house at 4:00 P.M. on that day. Sara did not deliver the child to Christopher as she had been ordered.
Based on Sara's alleged failure to comply with the alternate residential time awarded to Christopher, as set forth in the parenting plan, Christopher brought a motion for an order holding Sara in contempt of court. He alleged in his motion, which was filed on the same day that the order establishing Christopher's summer residential time was entered, that Sara "ha[d] engaged in a pattern of deliberately interfering with the alternate residential time awarded to ... Christopher ... pursuant to the ... Parenting Plan." CP at 48. Specifically, he indicated that Sara most recently violated the parenting plan when she "refused to make ... Caroline, available for weekend residential time [from] July 14-16, 2000," and when she "withheld Caroline ... on the following weekend of July 21-23, 2000." CP at 48. An order to show cause why Sara should not be held in contempt was then served on her. Sara responded, maintaining that because Caroline refused to visit with her father, Sara had not violated the residential time order. In a declaration filed on August 1, 2000, Sara stated that Caroline did not want to spend time with her father, indicating that "I have tried every method of persuasion available to me to encourage my daughter to visit with her father[, but] Caroline adamantly refuses to go visit him." CP at 51.
On August 3, 2000, based on Sara's alleged "failure to comply with the ... Parenting Plan ... and with the Order to Set Dates Re Summer Visitation," Christopher filed a second motion for contempt against Sara. In that motion, Christopher stated that "I have not seen Caroline since July 13, 2000." CP at 55-56. He further declared that CP at 56.
A show cause hearing on both show cause orders was held before a superior court commissioner on August 17, 2000. It focused on (1) the provisions of the parenting plan relating to alternate weekend residential time, (2) the parties' mutual agreement that Christopher would have residential time with Caroline on her 13th birthday, and (3) Sara's alleged failure to comply with the July 27, 2000, order regarding summer residential time. Christopher and Sara were each represented by attorneys at this hearing.
The record before the court commissioner included numerous declarations filed separately by Christopher and Sara, including the declarations referred to above. Some of Sara's declarations were filed in relation to Christopher's motion to establish dates for residential time visitation and in relation to his ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mason v. Mason
...issue is thus properly before us because we can affirm the trial court on any basis supported by the record. In re Marriage of Rideout , 150 Wash.2d 337, 358, 77 P.3d 1174 (2003).¶101 However, we also disagree with John and Robertson. Because Tatyana's intentional infliction of emotional di......
-
Michel-Garcia v. State (In re Dependency A.m.-S.)
...as to what courts "should" do in the future was unnecessary to our ultimate decision. Thus, it is dicta. See In re the Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wash.2d 337, 354, 77 P.3d 1174 (2003) ; Ruse v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 138 Wash.2d 1, 8-9, 977 P.2d 570 (1999) (where unnecessary to reach an iss......
-
Barrett v. Lucky Seven Saloon, Inc.
...well settled this court can affirm a lower court's decision on any basis adequately supported by the record. In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wash.2d 337, 358, 77 P.3d 1174 (2003); Mountain Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Tydings, 125 Wash.2d 337, 344, 883 P.2d 1383 (1994). Lucky Seven thoroughly br......
-
State v. Kipp
...evidence standard is appropriate.” Dolan v. King County, 172 Wash.2d 299, 310, 258 P.3d 20 (2011) (citing In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wash.2d 337, 351, 77 P.3d 1174 (2003)). In contrast, “where ... the trial court has not seen nor heard testimony requiring it to assess the credibility or......
-
§67.04 General Civil Contempt
...provisions of a court-ordered parenting plan or had a reasonable excuse for noncompliance. In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wn.2d 337, 77 P.3d 1174 (2003); see also In re Marriage o Riley, 200 Wn. App. 1026 (Aug. 21, 2017) (unpublished) (father held in contempt for failure to comply with resi......
-
§ 3.3 Evaluate an Appeal in Light of the Appellate Process
...made credibility determinations and entered findings of fact based upon a documentary record. In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wn.2d 337, 77 P.3d 1174 (2003). When the findings are based both on documentary evidence and live testimony, the appellate court will follow the substantial evidence ......
-
Table of Cases
...Marriage of, 110 Wn. App. 370, 40 P.3d 1192 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.02[4] Rideout, In re Marriage of, 150 Wn.2d 337, 77 P.3d 1174 (2003). . . . . . .65.03[1]; 65.04[10]; 67.04[1][c]-[e] Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46, 102 S. Ct. 49, 70 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1981) . . . . . . ......
-
Table of Cases
...17.7(7) Ricketts v. Bd. of Accountancy, 111 Wn. App. 113, 43 P.3d 548 (2002): 21.5(1)(c) Rideout, In re Marriage of, 150 Wn.2d 337, 77 P.3d 1174 (2003): 3.3(4)(b)(ii), 12.7(12), 12.9(7), 18.2(5) Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells Prairie Cmty. Council, 105 Wn. App. 813, 21 P.3d 1157 (2......