Shoemaker v. Shoemaker
| Decision Date | 15 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 43633-7-II,43633-7-II |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of: PAUL DAVID SHOEMAKER, Appellant, and DAWN MARIE SHOEMAKER, Respondent. |
MELNICK, J. — Paul David Shoemaker appeals the orders filed in this dissolution proceeding, arguing that the trial court (1) lacked the personal and subject matter jurisdiction necessary to enter the orders, (2) lacked sufficient evidence to impose the parenting plan restrictions against him, and (3) violated his due process right to a fair trial. Shoemaker also seeks to supplement the record on appeal, and in his reply brief requests an award of fees, costs, and sanctions against his former wife, now known as Dawn Marie Harris. Harris requests fees and costs on appeal. Because Shoemaker sought relief from the Kitsap County Superior Court and is a resident of Washington as well as a member of the armed forces stationed in Washington, the superior court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this case. We see no violation of Shoemaker's right to a fair trial on this record. We deny his motion to supplement the record as well as his untimely request for fees, costs, and sanctions, and we grant Harris's request for fees based on Shoemaker's intransigence. Affirmed.
The parties married in Tacoma in 2004, shortly after the birth of their son, E.S. During the proceedings at issue, Shoemaker was a member of the United States Air Force.1 On March 16, 2006, Shoemaker filed a petition for legal separation in Kitsap County, stating that "this court has jurisdiction over [Harris] because [Harris and Shoemaker's] home state of record is Washington." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 704. Harris subsequently filed a dissolution petition in Pierce County, and Shoemaker obtained an ex parte order and temporary parenting plan in Kitsap County that granted him temporary custody of E.S.
In June 2006, the parties signed an agreed order that dismissed Harris's Pierce County dissolution petition, continued Shoemaker's legal separation action filed in Kitsap County, and reaffirmed the temporary parenting plan. The order further stated that the parties were moving to Utah and were attempting to reconcile. The parties then moved together to Utah.
In February 2008, the Kitsap County court dismissed the case for want of prosecution. In 2009, the parties and their son moved to Japan where Shoemaker was deployed. After approximately a year, Harris wanted to end the marriage and tried to file the necessary paperwork to return to the United States with E.S. On September 10, 2010, Shoemaker obtained an ex parte order reinstating the dissolution case and again declaring that the Kitsap County court had jurisdiction because Kitsap County was his "designated home even though he is assigned out of state and out of the country by the military." CP at 705. In an attached declaration, Shoemaker stated that his "home address of record" was in Bremerton. CP at 355.
Unbeknownst to Harris, the ex parte order also reactivated the temporary parenting plan. Based on this ex parte order, Shoemaker attempted to have Harris removed from the house and took custody of their son.
On October 20, 2010, Harris obtained an ex parte restraining order placing E.S. in her custody and authorizing her to take E.S. if she had to leave Japan. On October 25, 2010, a temporary restraining order issued prohibiting either party from taking E.S. out of Japan without further court order. On October 29, 2010, an agreed parenting plan was signed granting Harris custody and giving Shoemaker alternate weekends and splitting holidays. The order stipulated that E.S. could not leave Japan without further order. The court issued a contemporaneous restraining order enjoining each party from disturbing the peace of the other party or any child. This court denied discretionary review of the order denying Shoemaker's motion for reconsideration. By this time, Shoemaker had fired two attorneys and represented himself.
In January 2011, Shoemaker began harassing Harris and refusing to return E.S. after weekend visits. On one occasion he failed to return E.S. for over two weeks. Shoemaker threatened to move back into Harris's house and several times came over and refused to leave. Shoemaker cancelled Harris's cell phone and internet service. The trial court described his behavior as "increasingly odd, hostile, and bizarre." CP at 705. On January 20, 2011, the Air Force issued a no contact order forbidding Shoemaker from having any contact with Harris or their son.
On February 11, 2011, the Kitsap County court held Shoemaker in contempt for violating the 2010 parenting plan and restraint provisions but provided purge provisions. With court permission, Harris took E.S. out of Japan. The court further ordered Shoemaker to give Harris the child's passport and any other documents necessary to remove him from Japan. The courtalso issued a warrant for Shoemaker's arrest and ordered him to pay child support and maintenance.
Despite the court orders and orders from his commanding officer, Shoemaker failed to cooperate and did not provide Harris with E.S.'s passport. Harris, stranded in Japan, left only after Shoemaker's commanding officer personally gave her the child's passport. Shoemaker also refused to comply with the orders to pay Harris child support, maintenance, and attorney fees.
Following an investigation of two separate incidents, an Air Force commander issued reports finding that Shoemaker's behavior met the criteria for "child emotional maltreatment" and "adult emotional maltreatment." CP at 706. On March 10, 2011, Shoemaker was arrested after failing to appear, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. After posting bail, he was booked and released.
On March 31, 2011, Shoemaker filed for divorce in Utah. The Utah court dismissed the action and stated in its order that Washington State had exclusive and continuing jurisdiction. This order was upheld on appeal. Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 265 P.3d 850 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). A federal district court subsequently dismissed two lawsuits Shoemaker filed against Harris, several Kitsap County judges, multiple Kitsap County employees, and several other parties.
On August 19, 2011, the Kitsap County court granted an order compelling Shoemaker to respond to Harris's interrogatories and request for production of documents, and also awarded terms. Shoemaker never complied with this order. At a settlement conference on December 7, 2011, Harris and her attorney appeared in person and Shoemaker appeared telephonically. Notice of the trial date was sent to Shoemaker's last three known addresses.
Shoemaker did not appear when the trial began on Monday, March 5, 2012. His mother informed the court that Shoemaker had been denied permission to leave Fort Lewis for any court hearings during the past year and that he was being taken to the Fort Lewis Clinic for heart tests. The court observed that Shoemaker had received notice of the trial date and had appeared at prior hearings within the past year. The court also noted that there was no verification of his whereabouts. The court allowed the case to proceed by default, and Harris testified. Before adjourning for the day, the court informed Shoemaker's mother that trial would resume the next morning and that Shoemaker could either appear or provide verification from military personnel that a medical condition had prevented his appearance on the first day of trial. When Harris's attorney explained that his client would be returning to New York on Thursday and asked for completion of the trial by then, the court reconfirmed that the trial would resume the following morning.
Shoemaker did not appear for court the next morning. When his mother asserted that he had been confined to quarters for 48 hours due to "severe medical stress," Harris's attorney responded that Shoemaker had not sought medical treatment until 5:00 p.m. the previous day. CP at 695. The trial judge spoke with a military officer who confirmed that Shoemaker had been confined to quarters for 48 hours.2 After Harris completed her testimony, the court continued the trial to March 14 and ruled that Harris would be allowed to appear telephonically due to Shoemaker's unexcused absence the previous day.
Shoemaker appeared on March 14 and testified on his own behalf. Although he challenged the court's jurisdiction, he admitted during cross examination that he had a current Washington driver's license and that he had signed court filings stating that his home of record was Kitsap County. Shoemaker's mother also testified.
The trial court subsequently issued a lengthy memorandum decision setting forth the above facts and ruling that it had jurisdiction over Shoemaker because of his efforts to seek Washington jurisdiction. The court also ruled that Shoemaker's residential time with E.S. would be restricted to allow only written communication monitored by Harris. The court left the restraining order in place because Shoemaker had withheld E.S. from Harris in violation of court orders and had stalked, intimidated, and harassed Harris.
The court found no evidence that either party's income had changed since entry of the temporary decree of dissolution and noted that Shoemaker had refused to comply with repeated discovery requests seeking current financial information. The court ordered Shoemaker to pay approximately $25,000 in unpaid child support and maintenance, and it based his ongoing child support obligation on the 2010 information he had provided earlier. The court awarded Harris $45,000 in attorney fees based on Shoemaker's intransigence and bad faith, and it imposed sanctions of $9,250 for Shoemaker's failure to provide discovery.
Shoemaker now appeals.
Shoemaker argues that the Kitsap County court lacked both personal and subject matter jurisdiction because neither the parties nor their son have lived in...
To continue reading
Request your trial