Siufanua v. Fuga (In re Custody of L.M.S.)
| Decision Date | 19 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 92897-5,92897-5 |
| Citation | 187 Wash.2d 567,387 P.3d 707 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the CUSTODY OF L.M.S. Faualuga Siufanua and Billie Siufanua, Petitioners, v. Tony Samoa Fuga and Lisa Lynnett Siufanua, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Laura Anne Carlsen, McKinley Irvin, 1201 Pacific Ave., Ste. 2000, Tacoma, WA, 98402-4314, for Petitioners.
Brian Patrick Edwards, Pivotal Law Group, 1200 5th Ave., Ste. 1217, Seattle, WA, 98101-3132, Philip Colin Tsai, Tsai Law Company PLLC, 2101 4th Ave., Ste. 2200, Seattle, WA, 98121-2332, Sherrie Bennett, Goldberg & Jones, 1200 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 700, Seattle, WA, 98109-3529, for Respondents.
¶1 Before a trial on the merits of a nonparental custody petition, the petitioner must satisfy a threshold requirement of "adequate cause" by showing that the biological parent is either unfit or that placing the child in the parent's custody would result in actual detriment to the child's growth and development. RCW 26.10.032(2). This standard protects biological parents' constitutional rights to raise their children. Here, Faualuga and Billie Siufanua (the grandparents) sought custody of L.M.S., their granddaughter. The grandparents contend that placing L.M.S. with Tony Fuga, her biological father, will cause actual detriment because the father has been mostly absent from her life and because they are the only parents she has known. But absent additional circumstances, we cannot assume that interfering with the parent-like relationship between L.M.S. and her grandparents amounts to actual detriment. Fuga has a positive relationship with L.M.S., and he is able and willing to raise her. The grandparents failed to present sufficient facts demonstrating a specific detriment that would ensue if L.M.S. is placed with Fuga. Under these circumstances, the trial court correctly denied the grandparents' nonparental custody petition for lacking adequate cause. We affirm.
¶2 L.M.S. was born to Fuga and Lisa Siufanua in December 2005. At the time, Fuga and Siufanua were living with Siufanua's parents, the grandparents. Sometime during the next three years, Fuga separated from Siufanua and moved to San Diego. Siufanua and L.M.S. remained with the grandparents. The grandparents claim that Fuga left Washington when L.M.S. was one year old. Fuga claims he left sometime in 2008, before L.M.S.'s third birthday.
¶3 In October 2008, Fuga married his current wife, Vaelua Fiatoa-Fuga, with whom he has two sons, ages five and six years old. Fiatoa-Fuga submitted an undisputed declaration attesting to the stable home life she and Fuga established for their two children.
¶4 Since moving to San Diego, Fuga has had minimal contact with L.M.S. In a December 2011 Facebook post to L.M.S., he wrote that "[it's] been 5 years since [I've] seen you or heard your voice." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 39. Fuga claims he did not have an accurate address or phone number for L.M.S. Fuga also claims he sent Siufanua money, diapers, and other items to support her and L.M.S. Fuga's parents (L.M.S.'s paternal grandparents), who lived near Siufanua, would occasionally babysit L.M.S. on weekends and pay for some of L.M.S.'s expenses like school clothes. Fuga did see L.M.S. briefly when Siufanua brought her to San Diego for vacation in the summer of 2012. During the trip, L.M.S. met with Fuga and members of Fuga's family. Fuga and Siufanua exchanged contact information so they could communicate in the future. However, when Fuga tried calling the telephone number Siufanua provided, he discovered it was disconnected.
¶5 L.M.S. was essentially raised by her grandparents. Although Siufanua and L.M.S. may have lived in a separate apartment for a brief period, they have mostly resided at the grandparents' house since L.M.S. was born. Due to Siufanua's untreated drug addiction, the grandparents served as L.M.S.'s primary caretakers.
¶6 In a September 2012 order determining parentage, the King County Superior Court legally established Fuga as L.M.S.'s father, ordered him to pay child support, including back support, and gave custody of L.M.S. to Siufanua. The grandparents concede that Fuga has complied with the order.
¶7 In October 2014, Fuga learned that Siufanua had been incarcerated. He returned to Washington to obtain custody of L.M.S. On October 8, 2014, Fuga filed a motion to modify the 2012 order determining parentage, asking the court to designate him as L.M.S.'s primary parent. On October 24, 2014, the grandparents filed a nonparental custody petition, seeking custody of L.M.S.
¶8 The grandparents argued they had adequate cause to seek custody for L.M.S., pointing to Fuga's absence during L.M.S.'s life and a domestic violence incident occurring before L.M.S. was born. In April 2005—eight months before L.M.S. was born—Fuga was arrested for assaulting Siufanua. Fuga was charged with fourth degree assault, but the case was dismissed after Fuga voluntarily entered and completed a domestic violence therapy program.
¶9 On November 14, 2014, a superior court commissioner issued an order concluding the grandparents failed to demonstrate adequate cause for a hearing on the merits, finding (1) no evidence that Fuga is unfit to parent, (2) that he is willing and able to take custody, and (3) that no actual harm would occur to the child in Fuga's custody. The trial court denied the grandparents' subsequent motion to revise the commissioner's order. The grandparents appealed, and the Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the trial court's order in an unpublished opinion. In re Custody of L.M.S. , No. 72938–1–I, slip op. at 1, 2016 WL 513306 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2016) (unpublished), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/729381.pdf. We granted the grandparents' petition for review. In re Custody of L.M.S ., 185 Wash.2d 1033, 377 P.3d 742 (2016).
¶10 Did the grandparents present facts that, if proved true, would establish that Fuga is either unfit or that placement with Fuga would cause actual detriment to L.M.S.'s growth and development?
¶11 We have not definitively articulated what standard of review applies to consideration of a trial court's adequate cause determination on a nonparental custody petition. See In re Custody of B.M.H. , 179 Wash.2d 224, 239 n.1, 315 P.3d 470 (2013) (). Although the Court of Appeals in B.M.H. applied a de novo standard, which no party appealed, we typically apply a more deferential standard of review to adequate cause determinations in similar contexts. Id. ; see , e.g. , In re Parentage of Jannot , 149 Wash.2d 123, 128, 65 P.3d 664 (2003) ; see also In re Marriage of McDole , 122 Wash.2d 604, 610, 859 P.2d 1239 (1993) ().
¶12 Today, we articulate that we review a trial court's adequate cause determination on a nonparental custody petition for an abuse of discretion, like we do in other custody determinations. "A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons." In re Marriage of Littlefield , 133 Wash.2d 39, 46–47, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997).
The grandparents failed to demonstrate adequate cause
¶13 A person other than a parent may petition for custody of a child "if the child is not in the physical custody of one of its parents or if the petitioner alleges that neither parent is a suitable custodian." RCW 26.10.030(1). In 2003, the legislature amended the nonparental custody statute to require a threshold determination of "adequate cause" prior to a hearing on a third party nonparental custody petition:
RCW 26.10.032.
¶14 When the grandparents filed their nonparental custody petition, L.M.S. was not in the custody of either Fuga or Siufanua, thus satisfying the requirements in RCW 26.10.030(1). The only issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded the grandparents failed to establish adequate cause under RCW 26.10.032(2).
¶15 Adequate cause is a high burden. Courts have "long recognized that a parent's interests in the nurture, upbringing, companionship, care, and custody of children are generally protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57, 77, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (Souter, J., concurring). "[O]nly under ‘extraordinary circumstances' does there exist a compelling state interest that justifies interference with ... parental rights." B.M.H ., 179 Wash.2d at 235, 315 P.3d 470 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Custody of Shields , 157 Wash.2d 126, 145, 136 P.3d 117 (2006) ). "[C]onstitutionally protected parental rights may not be infringed merely because of a finding that someone could do a better parenting job." In re Custody of E.A.T.W. , 168 Wash.2d 335, 346–47, 227 P.3d 1284 (2010). A mere showing that nonparental custody is in the best interests of the child is insufficient to establish adequate cause. In re Custody of S.C.D. – L ., 170 Wash.2d 513, 516–17, 243 P.3d 918 (2010).
Likewise, a nonparent pet...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re R.V.
...on the rights and responsibilities that accompany parentage based on a compelling state interest. See, e.g. , In re Custody of L.M.S. , 187 Wash.2d 567, 571, 387 P.3d 707 (2017) (explaining that a former statute allowed a nonparent to petition for child custody where there was a threshold s......
-
In re R.V.
...responsibilities that accompany parentage based on a compelling state interest. See, e.g., In re Custody of L.M.S., 187 Wn.2d 567, 571, 387 P.3d 707 (2017) (explaining that a former statute allowed a nonparent to petition for child custody where there was a threshold showing that "the biolo......
-
Naravane v. Vinther (In re RV)
...cases, observing that trial courts are given broad discretion in matters dealing with the welfare of children. In re Custody of L.M.S. , 187 Wash.2d 567, 574, 387 P.3d 707 (2017) (citing In re Marriage of McDole , 122 Wash.2d 604, 610, 859 P.2d 1239 (1993) ).¶ 23 The abuse of discretion sta......
- In re Custody of M.H.