IN RE THE CUSTODY OF HALLS 109 P.3d 15 (2005) CASE BRIEF

IN RE THE CUSTODY OF HALLS

109 P.3d 15 (2005)

NATURE OF THE CASE: June Arden (M) appeals two permanent parenting plan modifications granting sole custody of her children to Jeffrey Halls (F).

FACTS: M and F have three minor children, Trina (age 12), Jeffrey Jr. (age 11), and Selma (age 8). The court entered a final parenting plan on February 4, 2003. During the school year, the children resided with M and had residential time with F on the first and third Saturday and Sunday of each month and on certain holidays every other year. The summer schedule remained the same except F would have the children for the month of July. M and F had joint decision-making power. In April 2003, M was evicted from her home. She took the children to Red Wing, Minnesota, where she could stay in a family home. A few days later, M called F and told him she was in Red Wing with the children. She did not deliver the children to F for their next scheduled weekend visit. At the time, F was not in Washington; he was visiting his mother in Wisconsin. F moved for a contempt order, alleging that M violated the Plan by failing to give notice of her move to Minnesota and by failing to make the children available for F's scheduled weekend visit. F asked the court to sanction M with jail time. At the first contempt hearing M represented herself, appearing by telephone. The trial court found her in contempt of the Plan and ordered her confined in the Jefferson County jail. Three days later the trial court ordered M's release and set a show cause hearing. The court did not appoint counsel to represent M at the May 30 hearing, and F had still not petitioned to modify the parenting plan. At that hearing, the court stated that if the children were not delivered to F in 24 hours, he would incarcerate M. The court also set a review hearing for June 13, and explained to M that it would appoint counsel for her at that hearing because she faced possible jail time if it found her in contempt. The court found her in contempt of the parenting plan. F had not yet petitioned to modify the plan but the court granted him sole custody of the children. At the June 13, 2003 hearing, a public defender appeared on M's behalf. F had custody of the children, and M had been visiting them on weekends. The court asked F, 'Want me to put her in jail or are you satisfied?' F asked the court 'to enter a new Plan that reflects what's going on now.' The court changed the Plan and the children's primary residence was now F's. The parties retained joint decision making authority. Nothing in the record shows that F petitioned to modify the Plan. M moved for reconsideration of the plan modification and the May 30, 2003 contempt order. The motions were denied. M appealed. While the appeal was pending, F petitioned to modify the Plan. Appearing pro se, M opposed the petition. On September 5, 2003, the trial court found M in contempt, entered a new final parenting plan and entered a temporary order restraining M from (1) molesting or disturbing the peace of F or any child; (2) entering F's home, the grounds of his home, or his workplace; or (3) entering the children's schools. The order also restrained her from removing the children from Jefferson County. The order did not expire until 2013. M appealed a second time, challenging the most recent contempt order, the Second Modified Parenting Plan, and the Temporary Order. M argues that the trial court entered a series of orders that violated the substantive and procedural rules governing the modification of final parenting plans. M argues that the court modified a final parenting plan without a pending petition for modification, an adequate cause hearing, or adequate consideration of the statutory criteria.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner