Arevalo v. Dist. Ct. (Arevalo), No. 86607-COA, Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Unpublished Disposition, Jan. 17, 2024)
DO NOT CITE THIS CASE
Jesus Arevalo and Catherine DeLao were divorced in 2013. The parties stipulated that Jesus would obtain a life insurance policy naming Catherine as the beneficiary in lieu of her survivor benefits in his PERS retirement account, and the Court had ordered that Catherine was entitled to an immediate share of the PERS benefits being paid. However, Jesus argued that he was unable to obtain a life insurance policy due to his disability status. Extensive litigation ensued and Jesus had some issues with his appointed legal representation.
Ultimately, the district court (Hoskin) found Jesus in contempt and that Jesus’ refusal to reinstate Catherine’s PERS benefits resulted in at least six violations of the terms of the indemnification QDRO. The court determined that Jesus would serve 25 days in jail for each violation. However, the court provided that Jesus may purge his contempt and avoid these consequences by reinstating Catherine’s PERS benefits by April 20, 2023. Jesus filed a writ petition.
The Court of Appeals granted Jesus’ Writ of Mandamus, concluding that the district court abused its discretion by: declaring Jesus a vexatious litigant without adequate findings, by entering the indemnification QDRO, and by holding Jesus in contempt in a hearing commenced on the same day it allowed appointed counsel to withdraw without the appointment of new counsel, as the district court had already determined that appointed counsel was necessary in this case.
The COA directed the district court to hold further proceedings in this matter as necessary.
Luong v. Dist. Ct. (Vahey), No. 84522-COA, Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition (Unpublished Disposition, April 25, 2022)
DO NOT CITE THIS CASE
Minh Luong and James Vahey were divorced in 2021 and awarded joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. The parties have vigorously contested child-related matters.
The district court (Throne) determined that “intensive therapeutic interventions” were warranted and ordered the children to participate with James in the Turning Points for Families program from April 8-12 in New York. The program provides “reunification therapy for severe parental alienation or for unreasonably disrupted parent-child relationships.”
The district court granted James temporary sole legal and physical custody of the children for “at least” 90 days following the program’s conclusion and directed that neither Minh nor her family or associates have any contact with the children during this sequestration period. Minh filed this petition challenging the district court’s order as to both the children’s participation in the program and the sequestration with Jim afterward.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the portion of the petition seeking to vacate the order directing the children’s participation in the program is moot as the program has concluded. The children’s participation in the program was limited and the COA expected the district court to act soon on the issue of sequestration. The COA determined that its extraordinary intervention was not warranted at this time.
Luong v. Dist. Ct. (Vahey), No. 84743-COA, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Denying Petition for Writ of Prohibition (Unpublished Disposition, Aug. 29, 2022)
DO NOT CITE THIS CASE
Minh Luong and James Vahey were divorced in 2021 and awarded joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. The parties have vigorously contested various child-related matters. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court made several findings that Minh had alienated the children from James.
In the instant petition, Minh sought an order directing the district court to rescind its orders restricting the children from her, rescind its orders relating to the immersion therapy in New York, and to enforce the current custody order for joint physical custody.
The Court of Appeals was not persuaded as to Minh’s challenge to the district court’s order requiring the parties to participate in the Turning Points program. The COA restated that the challenge to the immersion therapy in New York is moot because the program concluded. Also, the COA was not persuaded as to Minh’s challenge to the order prohibiting contact between Minh and the children.
However, the COA expressed concern that the district court had “temporarily” modified custody for such a long period of time, which has effectively deprived one parent of custodial time with the children for a significant period without an evidentiary hearing to establish a final custody order.
The COA decided to honor Minh’s request and direct the reassignment of this matter to another department. The COA found that the district court’s statements suggested that it had closed its mind to the neutral evaluation of the evidence and pre-determined the outcome in this case. The COA determined that there is a reasonable doubt as to the district court’s impartiality.
Zamboanga v. Ortiz, No. 86050-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, Jan. 19, 2024)
DO NOT CITE THIS CASE
Brittany Zamboanga and Joey Ortiz were married and have three minor children together: J.O., R.O., C.O. The parties moved to Colorado and then they divorced in 2016. In 2021, the parties stipulated to a new arrangement where Joey would have sole legal custody regarding schooling, medical, and extracurricular activity decisions. Joey would also have primary physical custody of J.O. and R.O. and share joint physical custody of C.O.
However, in 2022, Brittany filed a motion to modify child custody, seeking legal and primary physical custody of all three children. Brittany alleged many substantial changes in circumstances that warranted the modification. Joey filed his opposition and sought primary physical custody of C.O.
After much litigation, the district court (Mercer) decided that it was going to deny Brittany’s motion and Joey’s countermotion. Both parties appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed. The COA found that the district court violated Brittany’s due process rights at the December hearing because the hearing exceeded the scope of the notice and issued a custody decision without providing her an opportunity to present evidence and cross examine witnesses.
Also, the COA found that the district court abused its discretion when it issued a custody order without holding a proper evidentiary hearing because both Brittany and Joey demonstrated prima facie cases for modification. The COA remanded for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the children’s best interests would be served by modification.
White v. Jones, No. 86500-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Jan. 19, 2024)
DO NOT CITE THIS CASE
Kimberly White is the paternal grandmother of her son Christopher Judson’s three minor children with Tamika Jones. Christopher and Tamika stipulated to joint legal and and physical custody. Kimberly was awarded temporary grandparent visitation the following year.
However, the relationship between Kimberly and Tamika worsened, and Tamika stopped allowing Kimberly to see the children and relocated with them to Michigan.
The district court (Ochoa) held an evidentiary hearing on Kimberly’s request for grandparent visitation. Kimberly was awarded grandparent visitation on Labor Day and Memorial Day weekends in Michigan, and weekly telephonic communication. Kimberly appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Kimberly apparently sought additional grandparent visitation. However, the COA found that the district court properly evaluated NRS 125C.050(6) in concluding that it was in the children’s best interest to maintain a relationship with Kimberly, despite Tamika and Christopher not wanting Kimberly to have visitation and the presumption against awarding grandparent visitation.
- New Cases added to MLAW: One COA Published: Kragen; One COA Unpublished: Garcia; Two SCT Published: B.S. and Cardenas-Garcia - January 5, 2025
- New Cases added to MLAW: Two SCT Published: L.R.S. and Falconi; Four COA Unpublished: Elmore, Xavier, Wilson, and Maldonado - October 8, 2024
- New Cases added to MLAW: Two SCT Unpublished: Parental Rights as to D.E. & Randall; Three COA Unpublished: Anderson, Carlson, & Teshome - September 26, 2024