Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
October 29, 2024
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II ANGELA MARIE VOS, No. 58557-0-II
Appellant,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION BOBBY JOE KNIGHT,
Respondent.
MAXA, J. – Angela Vos appeals the trial court’s entry of a July 2023 parenting plan
regarding her children, formally known as CK1 and HK, and the children’s father, Bobby Knight.
The July 2023 parenting plan modified a November 2022 parenting plan, which was entered
following a trial on Vos’s motion for a major modification of a 2017 parenting plan.
The 2022 parenting plan designated Knight as the sole decision-maker regarding the
children’s education and health care, but gave each parent equal residential time as long as they
both resided in the same school district. As a result of Vos’s actions, the July 2023 parenting
plan limited Vos’s time with her children to one supervised visit every other weekend.
Vos challenges the July 2023 parenting plan on various grounds.2 We hold that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion when it entered the 2023 parenting plan and that Vos has not
1 The record reflects that CK now prefers to be called by a different name. We will refer to them in this opinion as CK to maintain continuity with the record. No disrespect is intended. 2 Vos’s briefing addresses both the November 2022 and July 2023 parenting plans. However, a commissioner of this court limited the scope of the appeal to the 2023 parenting plan and No. 58557-0-II
provided any basis for reversing that parenting plan. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s
entry of the 2023 parenting plan.
FACTS
Vos and Knight are the parents of CK and HK. HK was born in 2007, and CK was born
in 2009. Vos and Knight have engaged in extensive litigation related to their relationship and
custody of CK and HK since as early as July 2009. The record reflects the filing of voluminous
pleadings over the years, many of them from Vos.
Apparently, a parenting plan was entered sometime before 2017 in which the children
resided a majority of the time with Vos. In August 2017, the Thurston County trial court
approved Knight’s petition for a major modification of the previously entered parenting plan and
entered a new parenting plan. The modification was based in part on the court’s findings that
Vos’s household was “detrimental to the children’s mental and emotional health” and Vos had
“engaged in conduct that is detrimental to the health and welfare of the children.” Ex. 27, at 3.
The court made extensive findings regarding Vos’s disruptive conduct regarding the children’s
schools, their medical providers, and Knight, including a finding that Vos engaged in abusive use
of conflict with Knight and with personnel at CK and HK’s schools.
The parenting plan changed the parent with whom the children resided most of the time
from Vos to Knight. The children would reside with Knight, except they would reside with Vos
from Thursday after school to return to school on Monday if Vos remained in Thurston County.
If Vos and Knight lived in the same school district, the parties would share time with the
children, a week on and a week off. The parenting plan also limited Vos’s authority to make
dismissed the appeal of the 2022 parenting plan because Vos’s appeal of the 2022 parenting plan was untimely.
2 No. 58557-0-II
decisions for CK and HK, giving Knight sole authority to make decisions about the children’s
education, medical care, and dental care.
Facts Since 2017 Parenting Plan
In October 2018, Vos filed a petition to modify the parenting plan. The trial court denied
the petition for lack of adequate cause.
At some point, both Vos and Knight moved to Mason County. On September 2, 2020,
Vos filed another motion in Mason County to change the 2017 parenting plan.
On September 17, 2020, the trial court entered a temporary order related to the 2017
parenting plan. The order provided that CK would reside with Vos, except that she would spend
every other weekend with Knight. The residential schedule remained the same for HK.
On September 21, 2020, Vos filed an amended petition in Mason County to change the
2017 parenting plan, alleging that there had been a significant change in circumstances regarding
Knight since 2017. Vos alleged that Knight “physically, mentally and emotionally abuses and
neglects the children to get back at [her],” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 129, and made a number of
specific allegations in which she claimed that Knight had engaged in conduct that was harmful to
the children.
In October, the trial court issued an order finding adequate cause to hold a trial on the
petition. The court also entered an order appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL) to investigate
issues related to making a new parenting plan for the children.
The trial court subsequently entered findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the
adequate cause hearing. The court entered a finding that it was concerned for the health and
well-being of HK and CK. The court also entered a finding that it had “concerns that there may
3 No. 58557-0-II
be parental alienation going both directions and that is why there needs to be a Parenting
Investigator.” CP at 392.
In April 2021, the GAL filed a confidential report regarding her investigation. The GAL
stated, “[T]he main problem that seems to weave themselves throughout this investigation is
abusive use of conflict by [M]iss Vos, mental health issues of Ms. Vos[,] and domestic violence
by Mr. Knight. The psychological damage that is being done to [HK] and [CK] is astonishing
and quite sad.” CP at 484. The GAL stated that she was very concerned about the children,
primarily because of Vos’s abusive use of conflict.
In April, the trial court issued an order addressing multiple motions filed by Vos and the
GAL’s report. The court highlighted the GAL’s statement about the psychological damage being
done to the children. The court ruled that the September 17, 2020 temporary order would remain
in effect and ordered Knight to enroll in the Wraparound Intensive Services (WISe) program.
In conclusion, the trial court stated,
That since, in general, ongoing litigation is not in the best interest of children and the amount of litigation in this case is already voluminous, neither party will file additional pleadings or motions regarding placement of the children unless a child’s life is in imminent danger. The amount of litigation in this case is not consistent with the children’s best interest.
CP at 515.
Bench Trial
Starting in March 2022, the trial court held a bench trial on the modification of the 2017
parenting plan. The trial took place over 19 days over five months, and the parties submitted 173
exhibits. Vos, Knight, and the GAL testified at the trial. Vos – representing herself – questioned
Knight, the GAL, and called four other witnesses. Knight did not call any witnesses.
4 No. 58557-0-II
Sometime in June, Vos moved from Mason County to Thurston County. She did not tell
Knight or the court that she had moved, and she continued to exercise her rights with the children
as if she still lived in Mason County.
October 2022 Memorandum Decision
On October 21, 2022, the trial court entered a memorandum decision after the bench trial.
The court discussed in detail a number of issues that were raised at trial. The court concluded,
“The children’s present environment is detrimental to their physical, mental, and emotional
health and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the
advantage of a change to the children. The Court will modify the Final Parenting Plan.” CP at
941.
On November 1, the trial court held an in camera interview with HK and CK to get their
input about potential changes to the 2017 parenting plan. During the interview, the children did
not tell the court that Vos had moved to Thurston County.
On November 3, Vos filed a form requesting that her address information be kept
confidential from Knight. The address that she listed was in Thurston County. The same day,
Vos filed a notice of address change. The notice stated that she agreed to accept legal papers at
an address in Mason County.
November 2022 Parenting Plan
The trial court entered a new parenting plan on November 15, 2022. The trial court ruled
that limitations should be placed on Vos under RCW 26.09.191 because she engages in the
abusive use of conflict. Under the plan, Knight “has sole decision making for medical, dental
and educational decisions of the children and [Vos] is precluded from having direct contact with
5 No. 58557-0-II
the medical and dental providers, or attending related appointments with the children, and has
limited direct contact with educational providers.” CP at 954.
Regarding parenting time, the plan stated, “Should Ms. Vos continue to reside in the
same school district as Mr. Knight, the parties shall share time with the children week on and
week off with exchanges on Monday after school.” CP at 956. The plan provided that “[a]nyone
with majority or substantially equal residential time (at least 45 percent) who wants to move with
the children must notify every other person who has court-ordered time with the children.” CP at
958 (emphasis in original).
The plan precluded Vos from making or attending medical or dental appointments for the
children, including mental health appointments, regardless of the wishes of the children, except
for WISe sessions that would take place at her home. The court ordered Knight and Vos to
participate in the WISe program. The court incorporated its October 21 memorandum as
findings of fact for the 2022 parenting plan.
The trial court scheduled a review hearing for later in 2023 to review the success of the
2022 parenting plan. The court also requested a supplemental GAL report to “address the
success, or lack of success, of the implementation” of the 2022 parenting plan. CP at 964-65.
Facts Since 2022 Parenting Plan
In March 2023, the GAL filed a confidential report. In the report, the GAL stated that
Vos told the GAL on September 7, 2022 that she had moved to Thurston County.
On March 22, Knight filed a motion for a temporary order for relocation to Thurston
County. The motion pointed out that Vos already had moved to Thurston County.
On May 8, the GAL filed another confidential report. The GAL noted that in her
previous report she expressed concern for the children because of Vos’s abusive use of conflict.
6 No. 58557-0-II
She then stated, “This GAL is disheartened to conclude that over the last few years that this court
action has transpired, nothing has changed. Ms. Vos continues to use abusive litigation and
abusive use of conflict, . . . which is psychologically damaging to [HK] and [CK].” CP at 1526.
However, the GAL also faulted both parents:
[T]his GAL is afraid these parties are entrenched in their dysfunction. . . . They have consistently placed their own selfishness ahead of the wellbeing of their children. This writer does not believe there could ever be a parenting plan, no matter how eloquently fashioned, that will ever stop the level of unhealthy patterns that this family has founded.
CP at 1527.
The GAL recommended that the alternating week residential schedule in the parenting
plan be continued. She also recommended that Vos’s ability to be involved with the children’s
medical care and education continue to be limited.
May 2023 Temporary Memorandum Opinion
On May 24, the court entered a temporary memorandum opinion regarding various
motions, including Vos’s motion to hold Knight in contempt for moving to Thurston County and
into a new school district without court approval. The court noted that the parenting plan
adopted a week on, week off residential schedule if Vos and Knight lived in the same school
district. However, Vos moved out of the school district even before the parenting plan was
entered, yet she continued to share residential time as if she had not moved. The court
acknowledged that, before Vos signed the parenting plan, she had filed a notice of address
change. The court had understood the notice to mean that Vos had continued to live in Mason
County. The court recognized that Vos had stated that she would accept service in Mason
County, but that the form did not affirmatively say that Vos lived in Mason County. However,
7 No. 58557-0-II
the court noted that “ordinarily that type of notice would not indicate moving out of the district
and the county.” CP at 1326.
At a hearing, Vos argued that she had complied with the 2022 parenting plan because she
was not the custodial parent and did not have to comply with relocation requirements of the 2017
order. The court stated,
Even if true, in all candor toward the trier of fact it would have been proper for her to advise the court and all parties when she moved. It appears she was not being fully candid with the court and that she benefited from that lack of candor in that she was given 50/50 time with the children.
CP at 1326.
Considering all the facts and circumstances, the trial court declined to find Knight in
contempt. Although Knight violated the court order by moving to Thurston County, the court
found that he did not act in bad faith.
June 2023 Hearing and Decision
On June 7, the trial court held a hearing to address Knight’s request for relocation and to
review the implementation of the November 2022 parenting plan.
After the parties argued at length, the GAL made a statement. She said that this was the
worst case of abusive use of conflict that she had seen in the 12 years she had worked as a GAL,
having served over 700 families. The GAL stated that “[t]he amount of psychological damage
being done to these children is shocking.” Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 2119. She emphasized that
“[HK] and [CK] are being stuck in the middle of this ongoing court battle, and it’s terrible.” RP
at 2120.
The GAL continued,
And the Court wanted me to focus mainly on whether the WISe protocol, which the Court had set up, was working. And the simple answer is no, and it’s not working because Ms. Vos pulls the children out of any mental health services they
8 No. 58557-0-II
start, using the law that the children have the right to choose their mental health providers, using that as an excuse. ....
I had written in my report that I don’t think it’ll work to go to where they don’t have shared time with their – with both parents because I think that it may backfire because the children will end up being extremely angry at their dad. And I’m not saying Mr. Knight is an angel because he’s not, but he’s hard and rough and gruff and doesn’t come off sometimes friendly.
But on the flipside, the amount of psychological abuse that’s occurring in Ms. Vos’ home may outweigh that – what they’re experiencing in Mr. Knight’s home. So I’m starting to lean towards maybe it’s better because the [RCW 26.09.]191 limiting factors that there not be a shared residential, and that the children live primarily with Mr. Knight.
RP at 2120-21.
Vos urged the court to discount the GAL’s report, stating that the GAL was inclined to
paint her as the villain and suggesting that the GAL was biased. Knight agreed with the GAL.
He explained that while he had argued for 50-50 residential time with the children between him
and Vos during the bench trial, given Vos’s relocation with the children and failure to follow the
2022 parenting plan he should have 100 percent residential time and Vos should be given one
weekend each month with the children.
During the hearing, Vos confirmed that she had moved to from Mason County to
Thurston County in June 2022.
On July 31, the trial court entered a memorandum decision. The court highlighted its
finding in the 2022 parenting plan that a move with the children would only exacerbate the
children’s challenges.
The court stated, “Unbeknownst to Mr. Knight or the Court, Ms. Vos was involved in her
own relocation plan, a plan that involved the children and that she kept secret during the trial and
for several months following the trial.” CP at 1400. The court stated that the focus of its entry
9 No. 58557-0-II
of the 2022 parenting plan following the trial was to mitigate Vos’s destructive actions. The
court explained that a significant reason for why it did not approve Knight’s earlier proposed
relocation was the concern that at that time the relocation could have jeopardized the success of
the WISe program. The court stated that if it had known about Vos’s relocation plans, it would
have had a profound impact on the court’s consideration of the issue.
The trial court concluded that Vos knew the impact her relocation to Thurston County
would have on the court’s consideration of the 2022 parenting plan because of Vos’s omission of
the information from the court during trial and in the timing of her filing of the notice of change
of address. The court pointed out that Vos had exercised her visitation rights as if she still
resided in the same school district as Knight. The court also emphasized that it had held an in
camera review with the children on November 1, months after Vos had moved. The court noted
that keeping Vos’s move a secret from the court must have caused the children stress.
The trial court also expressed concern about Vos’s inappropriate influence on the
children’s mental health decisions. The court stated that Vos’s actions were why CK and HK
had not made sufficient progress with WISe services. Based on discussions between the GAL
and the children, the court noted that Vos continued to inappropriately influence the children’s
health care decisions. The court emphasized that this was contrary to the letter and intent of the
2022 parenting plan.
The court stated:
Ms. Vos has been engaged in a process that is totally contrary to the Court’s focus in the November 2023 [sic] orders. It is this court’s opinion that regardless of any court order, Ms. Vos will continue to attempt to undermine the relationship between the children and Mr. Knight and will continue to control the children’s mental health decisions, at least as long as she has the ability to do so. It is further this Court’s opinion that there is no program, whether the WISe program or any other counseling program that could achieve the Court’s goal of resolving the strained
10 No. 58557-0-II
relationship between the children and Mr. Knight as long as Ms. Vos is actively engaged in the children’s daily lives.
Ms. Vos presented a significant amount of evidence related to issues that she had about Mr. Knight throughout the lengthy trial during 2022. Ultimately, the Court did not find such issues legitimate and was more concerned about Ms. Vos’s mental stability and ongoing paranoia about Mr. Knight. The Court was and remains concerned that Ms. Vos’s paranoia is a function of some sort of mental health disorder. However, Ms. Vos presented mental health assessments that determined that she had no diagnosable disorder. This is unfortunate because there is no identified therapy that could be utilized in order to resolve such concerns.
The Court considered the evidence presented during the trial and was seriously concerned about Ms. Vos’s continued influence over the children. When the Court entered its decision following the trial, it considered a final Parenting Plan that further restricted Ms. Vos’s contact with the children. However, the Court listened to Mr. Knight and his urging that the children would benefit from an alternating weekly schedule with Ms. Vos.
Given Ms. Vos’s ongoing determination to erode the relationship between Mr. Knight and the children, her ongoing paranoia about Mr. Knight, her ongoing influence over the mental health decisions of the children, and her ongoing inability or unwillingness to abide by this Court’s orders, the Court has now concluded that it is in the children’s best interest to further limit contact between Ms. Vos and the children.
This limitation must go beyond a limitation in the amount of time Ms. Voss [sic] is allowed to be with the children. The limitation needs to include a supervisory element because it is clear to this court that any unrestricted contact between the children and Ms. Vos will only give her the opportunity to continue with her improper influence over them.
To this end, the Court is entering a new Final Parenting Plan. The new Final Parenting Plan will provide for the children to primarily reside with Mr. Knight and have only supervised contact with Ms. Vos.
CP at 1402-03.
The trial court also entered a temporary order approving Knight’s move with the children
to Thurston County.
11 No. 58557-0-II
July 2023 Parenting Plan
At the same time as the trial court entered its memorandum decision on July 31, the court
entered a new parenting plan. The parenting plan placed limitations on Vos based on a finding
that she “uses conflict in a way that may cause serious damage to the psychological
development” of the children. CP at 1408. The parenting plan significantly limited Vos’s
contact with the children. It stated that Vos could see the children during professionally
supervised visits every other weekend for three hours at a time. The court specified:
Ms. Vos shall not discuss this matter and/or parenting issues with the children, either directly or through third parties. Ms. Vos shall not discuss this matter or parenting issues in the presence of the children or allow others to discuss this matter or parenting issues in the presence of the children. In addition, Ms. Vos shall not provide the children with any information that is related to any parenting issues. Ms. Vos is specifically precluded from commenting, allowing others to comment, or providing any information regarding healthcare and/or schooling of the children in such a manner that the children will likely become aware of the information. These restrictions relate to all direct contacts by Ms. Vos, or contacts through third parties. Should Ms. Vos violate this provision during a supervised visitation, then the supervisor shall terminate the visit at that moment and no future visitations shall occur until they are ordered by the Court.
CP at 1408.
The trial court ordered that only Knight can make major decisions about the children,
including those related to education, health care, and dental care. The court adopted as
additional findings its October 21, 2022 memorandum decision. The trial court did not reference
its July 31, 2023 memorandum decision in the 2023 parenting plan’s findings of fact.
Vos appeals the trial court’s entry of the July 2023 parenting plan.
ANALYSIS
A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
RCW 26.09.260 governs modification of a parenting plan. Under RCW 26.09.260(1), the
trial court may modify the existing parenting plan only if it “finds, upon the basis of facts that
12 No. 58557-0-II
have arisen since the prior decree or plan or that were unknown to the court at the time of the
prior plan, that a substantial change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the
nonmoving party and that the modification is in the best interest of the child and is necessary to
serve the best interests of the child.”
RCW 26.09.260(2) provides that the trial court shall retain the residential schedule
established by the parenting plan unless, among other things, “The child’s present environment is
detrimental to the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health and the harm likely to be caused
by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child.” RCW
26.09.260(2)(c).
In addition, “[t]he court may reduce or restrict contact between the child and the parent
with whom the child does not reside a majority of the time if it finds that the reduction or
restriction would serve and protect the best interests of the child using the criteria in RCW
26.09.191.” RCW 26.09.260(4). Under RCW 26.09.191(3), a court may limit any provisions of
the parenting plan if one of several factors exists, including “[t]he abusive use of conflict by the
parent which creates the danger of serious damage to the child’s psychological development.”
RCW 26.09.191(3)(e).
We review the trial court’s decision on modification of a parenting plan for an abuse of
discretion. In re Marriage of Zigler, 154 Wn. App. 803, 808, 226 P.3d 202 (2010). A trial court
abuses its discretion where its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable
grounds or reasons. In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wn.2d 114, 127, 392 P.3d 1041 (2017).
B. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Vos included 113 assignments of error in her brief. However, Vos failed to provide any
argument at all or any meaningful argument for most of her assignments of error. In general, we
13 No. 58557-0-II
will not consider an issue when the appellant has not provided meaningful argument. Wiklem v.
City of Camas, ___ Wn. App. 2d ___, 551 P.3d 1067, 1078 (2024). Accordingly, we decline to
address many of Vos’s assignments of error for lack of meaningful argument. Moreover, we
decline to address assignments of error 11-78, because they relate to the November 2022
parenting plan, the appeal of which was dismissed by the court commissioner. Similarly, we
decline to address many of Vos’s arguments in her brief that relate only to the November 2022
parenting plan or matters arising before entry of that plan.
In assignment of error 113, Vos assigns error to “any and all findings, conclusions and
statements, written or oral, which are substantially similar to the assignments of error above or
relate to the assignments of error.” Br. of Appellant at 30. However, RAP 10.3(a)(4) states that
an appellant’s brief must contain “[a] separate concise statement of each error a party contends
was made by the trial court.” And RAP 10.3(g) states, “A separate assignment of error for each
finding of fact a party contends was improperly made must be included with reference to the
finding by number.” Assignment of error 113 violates these rules and is not specific enough to
allow review.
C. CHALLENGES TO 2023 PARENTING PLAN
1. RCW 26.09.260(1) Findings
As noted above, a trial court can modify a parenting plan only if the court finds, based on
new or previously unknown facts, that there has been a substantial change of circumstances of
the child or the nonmoving party and that modification is in the best interest of the children.
RCW 26.09.260(1). Vos argues that in entering the July 2023 parenting plan, the trial court
failed to make the necessary findings to support a modification. We disagree.
14 No. 58557-0-II
The trial court did not make specific RCW 26.09.260(1) findings regarding a change in
circumstances in the July 2023 parenting plan. However, at the same time the court entered the
parenting plan it also entered a memorandum decision explaining the reasons for modifying the
November 2022 parenting plan. The memorandum contains sufficient findings to support a
modification. Even though the memorandum decision was not expressly referenced in the 2023
parenting plan, because they were entered at the same time it is clear that the 2023 parenting plan
was based on the findings in the memorandum decision.
First, the trial court emphasized that Vos’s move to Thurston County was a fact unknown
to the court when the 2022 parenting plan was entered. This move reflected a change in
circumstances. The court stated, “Had the Court known about Ms. Vos’s plan to relocate, it
would have, in all likelihood, had a profound effect on the Court’s consideration of this issue.”
CP at 1400.
Second, the trial court found that Vos “continues to inappropriately influence the choices
that the children are making, particularly regarding their mental health decisions.” CP at 1401.
The court found that Vos’s actions caused a lack of progress for CK’s WISe services. This
conduct reflected a change in circumstances.
Third, the trial court found that modification was warranted due to Vos’s “ongoing
determination to erode the relationship between Mr. Knight and the children, her ongoing
paranoia about Mr. Knight, her ongoing influence over the mental health decisions of the
children, and her ongoing inability or unwillingness to abide by this Court’s orders.” CP at
1402. This conduct reflected a change in circumstances.
15 No. 58557-0-II
The other required RCW 26.09.260(1) finding is that a modification is in the children’s
best interest. The trial court expressly made this finding in both the memorandum decision and
the parenting plan.
We hold that the trial court’s findings satisfied the requirements of RCW 26.09.260(1).
2. Trial Court’s Decisions
Vos broadly argues that the trial court made many manifestly unreasonable decisions and
disbelieved uncontroverted evidence and made multiple errors through the case. However,
disregarding arguments regarding the November 2022 parenting plan and the proceedings
leading up to that plan, Vos identifies only three specific instances of claimed abuse of
discretion.
First, Vos argues that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on the GAL reports
over other evidence. We disagree.
Here, Vos presented evidence that was contrary to the GAL’s reports and testimony. But
the trial court found the GAL reports and the GAL’s testimony were more reliable than the
evidence Vos presented and Vos’s testimony. We defer to the trial court’s weighing of witnesses
and evidence. Young v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 9 Wn. App. 2d 26, 32, 442 P.3d 5 (2019).
Second, Vos argues that the trial court abused its discretion by unreasonably focusing on
her move to Thurston County in adopting the July 2023 parenting plan. We disagree.
The 2022 parenting plan stated, “Should Ms. Vos continue to reside in the same school
district as Mr. Knight, the parties shall share time with the children week on and week off with
exchanges on Monday after school.” CP at 956. It also set forth specific notice requirements for
parents who want to move with children. Vos, in an apparent attempt to maintain 50-50
residential time while living outside of the school district, failed to inform the trial court of her
16 No. 58557-0-II
move to Thurston County. Moreover, the children were forced to keep that information secret
during their meeting with the court. The court noted that this probably placed a lot of stress on
the children, and was another example of Vos’s inappropriate engagement with the children.
Vos argues that her move out of the school district did not violate the 2022 parenting
plan. But whether or not there was a violation is less important than the fact that Vos misled the
trial court and increased the turmoil that the children were experiencing. Accordingly, we hold
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when relied on Vos’s move in adopting the July
2023 parenting plan.
Third, Vos argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it decreased her
residential time with the children from 50-50 to supervised visits every other weekend. We
disagree.
In its July 2023 memorandum, the trial court based its decision to limit Vos’s residential
time on her “ongoing determination to erode the relationship between Mr. Knight and the
children, her ongoing paranoia about Mr. Knight, her ongoing influence over the mental health
decisions of the children, and her ongoing inability or unwillingness to abide by this Court’s
orders.” CP at 1402. The record supports these findings. As a result, the trial court’s decision to
limit Vos’s time with the children was neither “manifestly unreasonable” nor “based on
untenable grounds or untenable reasons.” Black, 188 Wn.2d at 127. Accordingly, we hold that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it limited Vos’s residential time with the children.
3. GAL Bias
Vos argues that the GAL was biased in her investigations and challenges the accuracy of
the GAL’s findings and reports. We disagree.
17 No. 58557-0-II
A GAL must (1) have contact with all parties, (2) treat all parties with respect, (3) timely
perform a parenting investigation, and (4) have independent objectivity and the appearance of
fairness. In re Marriage of Bobbitt, 135 Wn. App. 8, 28, 144 P.3d 306 (2006).
Vos argues that the GAL showed antagonism toward her, she improperly relied on
Knight’s statements with little to no fact checking, she improperly made credibility
determinations regarding he children and other witnesses, and her reports contradict themselves.
However, the only example Vos provides is the GAL’s testimony during the trial about an
instance where Vos had taken HK to a different agency to initiate services without informing
Knight, in violation of the parenting plan. Vos argues that she did what HK wanted and did not
make decisions on his behalf.
Vos provides no meaningful argument to support her claim that the GAL was biased. We
decline to address issues for which the appellant fails to provide meaningful argument. Wiklem,
551 P.3d at 1078 [¶54]. We conclude that Vos has not shown that the GAL was biased to the
extent that the July 2023 parenting plan should be reversed.
4. Trial Court Bias
Vos argues throughout her brief that the trial court was biased against her. We disagree.
“Pursuant to the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid if a
reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair,
impartial, and neutral hearing.” State v. Solis-Diaz, 187 Wn.2d 535, 540, 387 P.3d 703 (2017).
Under this doctrine, a presiding judge must actually be impartial and also appear to be impartial.
Id. The question is “whether the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Id. To
make this determination, we apply an objective test that assumes a reasonable person knows and
understands all the relevant facts. Id. The party asserting a violation has the burden of showing
18 No. 58557-0-II
evidence of a judge's actual or potential bias. Id. A party asserting a violation of the appearance
of fairness doctrine must produce sufficient evidence demonstrating bias. Id. Mere speculation
is not enough. In re Estate of Hayes, 185 Wn. App. 567, 607, 342 P.3d 1161 (2015).
Vos argues that the actions of the trial court show an appearance of bias. But the record
does not support this argument. We conclude that Vos does not demonstrate that the trial court
lacked impartiality or presented an appearance of unfairness. The mere fact that the trial court’s
rulings did not favor Vos does not reflect bias. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not
violate the appearance of unfairness doctrine.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the July 2023 parenting plan.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
MAXA, J.
We concur:
CRUSER, C.J.
VELJACIC, J.