IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
ABDIFATAH GONI, No. 87387-3-I Appellant, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES,
Respondent.
COBURN, J. — Shukri Egal asked the State to secure child support for her three
children from their father, Abdifatah Goni. After receiving a notice and finding of financial
responsibility, Goni requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Goni
and Egal relied on a Somali interpreter at the telephonic hearing. Prior to the hearing,
Goni’s counsel sent his exhibits to the Department of Social and Health Services,
Division of Child Support (DCS) but did not send them to Egal or upload them to the
ALJ’s office portal. At the end of the hearing, the ALJ allowed DCS to later forward
Goni’s exhibits to the ALJ. Over Egal’s objection, the ALJ allowed Goni’s exhibits to be
part of the record but asked DCS to send copies to Egal, who was given a week to file
her objections.
Goni now appeals the ALJ’s child support orders, arguing that the judge
misapplied the law in (1) finding that Goni does not have a minor child from another 87387-3-I/2
relationship, which could warrant a deviation under RCW 26.19.075(1)(e)(iii); and (2)
determining his net income by refusing to subtract his claimed “[c]ar and truck
expenses” on his 2022 tax form as “[n]ormal business expenses” under RCW
26.19.071(5)(i). Though the decision to deviate from the standard calculation for child
support is discretionary, the ALJ’s finding that Goni “has no additional minor children”
was not supported by substantial evidence and the trial court failed to make mandatory
written findings to support its denial of Goni’s apparent request for a deviation. RCW
26.19.075(3). For that reason, we reverse in part and remand for reconsideration of
Goni’s claim he supports another minor child. We also direct the ALJ to hold a hearing
as to this issue, allowing Egal the opportunity to respond to Goni’s related exhibits with
the assistance of an interpreter.
Because RCW 26.19.071(5)(i) requires justification for any business expense
deduction where there is disagreement, the ALJ did not misapply the law in rejecting
Goni’s claim of $54,968 in “[c]ar and truck expenses” listed on his 2022 tax return
without more in the record justifying that claim. We affirm as to that issue.
FACTS
Goni and Egal were married from 2011 to 2017 and have three children together.
Upon dissolution of their marriage, no child support was ordered. The three children
reside with Egal.
In July 2023 Egal applied to DCS to establish and collect child support for Egal’s
children from their father, Goni. DCS prepared a Notice and Finding of Financial
Responsibility and served it on Goni. Goni objected and requested a hearing, which was
held telephonically before an ALJ. Egal appeared pro se, Goni appeared represented by
2 87387-3-I/3
an attorney, and a DCS claims officer appeared. 1
A Somali interpreter was provided at the hearing to assist both Goni and Egal. At
the start of the hearing, the ALJ admitted DCS’ 24 proposed exhibits, including the
notice and finding of financial responsibility, DCS’ proposed child support worksheets,
birth records, and Egal’s employment security data. Goni and Egal did not object to
these exhibits.
Goni testified that he previously worked as a caregiver but has worked as a Lyft
driver since 2016. The admitted exhibits included Goni’s monthly income and expenses
for June and July 2023. These exhibits indicated that Goni spent $720 on “Foul [sic],”
$780 on “Dispatch fee,” $467 on “Insurance,” $281 on “Phone bill,” $30 on “Toll,” $60 on
“Car wash,” and $500 on “Car maintenance” for a total of $2,838. For those months, his
gross monthly income was stated as $4,038 and he had a “profit” of $1,200.
Goni also testified that he has a minor child from another relationship who does
not live with him. He confirmed that he does not have an obligation to pay child support
to that child even though he provides “assistance and support.”
After the ALJ, Goni’s attorney, and DCS questioned Goni, the ALJ asked Egal
whether she had any questions for Goni. Egal replied, “[e]verything [Goni] testified
about, he lied about, and I have a lot of questions for him.” The ALJ responded, “[w]ell, I
will take your testimony and you can explain what you disagree with.” Egal testified that
she works as a caregiver, earning $20 an hour working 160 hours a month.
Goni was not asked about any of his exhibits, which his counsel later explained
he wanted to submit but could not upload into the ALJ’s office portal. Counsel explained
1 The ALJ’s Final Order incorrectly noted that Goni represented himself. 3 87387-3-I/4
that he had sent the exhibits to DCS but had not sent them to Egal because he did not
have her address. The ALJ asked DCS to forward to him Goni’s exhibits and send
copies to Egal. The ALJ said he would hold the record open until he received Goni’s
exhibits. The ALJ then asked Egal if she had any objections to Goni’s exhibits being
sent to the ALJ’s office after the hearing and included in the record. Egal replied, “[o]h, I
don’t want – those are not, uh, correct, uh, documents. He has hidden his income
information. He lied about them.” The ALJ told Egal she would have a week to review
those documents and file any objection to them.
Goni’s 2022 tax return listed his gross income as $129,718. Goni also claimed
$54,968 under the “[c]ar and truck expenses” category and $52,988 under the “[o]ther
expenses” category. For his “[c]ar and truck expenses,” Goni reported that he placed his
vehicle in service for business purposes on January 1, 2020, and has driven 89,645
miles for “[b]usiness.” The record supports that he only has one vehicle. Though he
used the same vehicle for personal use when not working, Goni indicated he drove the
vehicle 0 miles for “[o]ther” and left the number of miles driven for “[c]ommuting” blank.
He also indicated that he has written evidence to support this deduction. Goni did not
provide any written evidence to support the $54,968 expense. For his $52,988 “[o]ther
expenses,” Goni listed $3 in “Uber - Tolls,” $37,247 as a “Lyft - Platform Fee,” $8,559 as
a “Lyft - Service Fee,” $5,754 as a “Lyft - Third Party Fee,” $399 in “Lyft - Tolls,” $44 as
a “Lyft - Express Pay Fee,” and $982 for a “Business phone.”
Goni’s proposed child support worksheets subtracted his claimed “[c]ar and truck
expenses” and his “[o]ther expenses” from his gross monthly income, resulting in a
monthly net income of $1,813.50. Goni also indicated on his proposed child support
4 87387-3-I/5
worksheets that he pays $200 a month in “Monthly Child Support Ordered for Other
Children.” Finally, Goni included two $200 “PaySii” payment receipts to Xabiibo Xasan
Sharaawe” sent in August and October 2023. 2 The receipts do not indicate the reason
this money was sent or explain the relevance of why someone named Sharaawe
received payment.
The record does not reflect that Egal filed any post-hearing objection. The ALJ
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
ABDIFATAH GONI, No. 87387-3-I Appellant, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES,
Respondent.
COBURN, J. — Shukri Egal asked the State to secure child support for her three
children from their father, Abdifatah Goni. After receiving a notice and finding of financial
responsibility, Goni requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Goni
and Egal relied on a Somali interpreter at the telephonic hearing. Prior to the hearing,
Goni’s counsel sent his exhibits to the Department of Social and Health Services,
Division of Child Support (DCS) but did not send them to Egal or upload them to the
ALJ’s office portal. At the end of the hearing, the ALJ allowed DCS to later forward
Goni’s exhibits to the ALJ. Over Egal’s objection, the ALJ allowed Goni’s exhibits to be
part of the record but asked DCS to send copies to Egal, who was given a week to file
her objections.
Goni now appeals the ALJ’s child support orders, arguing that the judge
misapplied the law in (1) finding that Goni does not have a minor child from another 87387-3-I/2
relationship, which could warrant a deviation under RCW 26.19.075(1)(e)(iii); and (2)
determining his net income by refusing to subtract his claimed “[c]ar and truck
expenses” on his 2022 tax form as “[n]ormal business expenses” under RCW
26.19.071(5)(i). Though the decision to deviate from the standard calculation for child
support is discretionary, the ALJ’s finding that Goni “has no additional minor children”
was not supported by substantial evidence and the trial court failed to make mandatory
written findings to support its denial of Goni’s apparent request for a deviation. RCW
26.19.075(3). For that reason, we reverse in part and remand for reconsideration of
Goni’s claim he supports another minor child. We also direct the ALJ to hold a hearing
as to this issue, allowing Egal the opportunity to respond to Goni’s related exhibits with
the assistance of an interpreter.
Because RCW 26.19.071(5)(i) requires justification for any business expense
deduction where there is disagreement, the ALJ did not misapply the law in rejecting
Goni’s claim of $54,968 in “[c]ar and truck expenses” listed on his 2022 tax return
without more in the record justifying that claim. We affirm as to that issue.
FACTS
Goni and Egal were married from 2011 to 2017 and have three children together.
Upon dissolution of their marriage, no child support was ordered. The three children
reside with Egal.
In July 2023 Egal applied to DCS to establish and collect child support for Egal’s
children from their father, Goni. DCS prepared a Notice and Finding of Financial
Responsibility and served it on Goni. Goni objected and requested a hearing, which was
held telephonically before an ALJ. Egal appeared pro se, Goni appeared represented by
2 87387-3-I/3
an attorney, and a DCS claims officer appeared. 1
A Somali interpreter was provided at the hearing to assist both Goni and Egal. At
the start of the hearing, the ALJ admitted DCS’ 24 proposed exhibits, including the
notice and finding of financial responsibility, DCS’ proposed child support worksheets,
birth records, and Egal’s employment security data. Goni and Egal did not object to
these exhibits.
Goni testified that he previously worked as a caregiver but has worked as a Lyft
driver since 2016. The admitted exhibits included Goni’s monthly income and expenses
for June and July 2023. These exhibits indicated that Goni spent $720 on “Foul [sic],”
$780 on “Dispatch fee,” $467 on “Insurance,” $281 on “Phone bill,” $30 on “Toll,” $60 on
“Car wash,” and $500 on “Car maintenance” for a total of $2,838. For those months, his
gross monthly income was stated as $4,038 and he had a “profit” of $1,200.
Goni also testified that he has a minor child from another relationship who does
not live with him. He confirmed that he does not have an obligation to pay child support
to that child even though he provides “assistance and support.”
After the ALJ, Goni’s attorney, and DCS questioned Goni, the ALJ asked Egal
whether she had any questions for Goni. Egal replied, “[e]verything [Goni] testified
about, he lied about, and I have a lot of questions for him.” The ALJ responded, “[w]ell, I
will take your testimony and you can explain what you disagree with.” Egal testified that
she works as a caregiver, earning $20 an hour working 160 hours a month.
Goni was not asked about any of his exhibits, which his counsel later explained
he wanted to submit but could not upload into the ALJ’s office portal. Counsel explained
1 The ALJ’s Final Order incorrectly noted that Goni represented himself. 3 87387-3-I/4
that he had sent the exhibits to DCS but had not sent them to Egal because he did not
have her address. The ALJ asked DCS to forward to him Goni’s exhibits and send
copies to Egal. The ALJ said he would hold the record open until he received Goni’s
exhibits. The ALJ then asked Egal if she had any objections to Goni’s exhibits being
sent to the ALJ’s office after the hearing and included in the record. Egal replied, “[o]h, I
don’t want – those are not, uh, correct, uh, documents. He has hidden his income
information. He lied about them.” The ALJ told Egal she would have a week to review
those documents and file any objection to them.
Goni’s 2022 tax return listed his gross income as $129,718. Goni also claimed
$54,968 under the “[c]ar and truck expenses” category and $52,988 under the “[o]ther
expenses” category. For his “[c]ar and truck expenses,” Goni reported that he placed his
vehicle in service for business purposes on January 1, 2020, and has driven 89,645
miles for “[b]usiness.” The record supports that he only has one vehicle. Though he
used the same vehicle for personal use when not working, Goni indicated he drove the
vehicle 0 miles for “[o]ther” and left the number of miles driven for “[c]ommuting” blank.
He also indicated that he has written evidence to support this deduction. Goni did not
provide any written evidence to support the $54,968 expense. For his $52,988 “[o]ther
expenses,” Goni listed $3 in “Uber - Tolls,” $37,247 as a “Lyft - Platform Fee,” $8,559 as
a “Lyft - Service Fee,” $5,754 as a “Lyft - Third Party Fee,” $399 in “Lyft - Tolls,” $44 as
a “Lyft - Express Pay Fee,” and $982 for a “Business phone.”
Goni’s proposed child support worksheets subtracted his claimed “[c]ar and truck
expenses” and his “[o]ther expenses” from his gross monthly income, resulting in a
monthly net income of $1,813.50. Goni also indicated on his proposed child support
4 87387-3-I/5
worksheets that he pays $200 a month in “Monthly Child Support Ordered for Other
Children.” Finally, Goni included two $200 “PaySii” payment receipts to Xabiibo Xasan
Sharaawe” sent in August and October 2023. 2 The receipts do not indicate the reason
this money was sent or explain the relevance of why someone named Sharaawe
received payment.
The record does not reflect that Egal filed any post-hearing objection. The ALJ
considered all exhibits submitted and the testimony from the hearing in issuing its final
order. The ALJ determined that Egal’s monthly net income was $2,936.62. As for Goni’s
net income, the ALJ’s order explained that Goni has business deductions totaling
$52,988, so his remaining gross income is $76,730. The ALJ rejected Goni’s claim of
$54,968 as “[c]ar and truck expenses,” finding it was “depreciation of his vehicle” that is
“not a deduction based on the support table and worksheets.” After considering Goni’s
federal income tax and self-employment tax, the ALJ determined that Goni’s gross
monthly income is $6,394 and his net monthly income is $4,693.44.
According to the ALJ’s child support schedule worksheet, Goni and Egal’s
combined monthly income totals $7,530.06 with Goni’s proportional share as “.610” and
Egal’s proportional share as “.390.” Goni’s basic child support obligation is $740 per
child. Accordingly, the ALJ ordered Goni to pay $1,354.20 in monthly child support and
$7,382.52 in child support debt for the period of July 18, 2023, through December 31,
2023. The ALJ found that “Goni has no additional minor children.” The ALJ did not make
any findings related to deviation from the standard child support calculation.
Goni sought reconsideration, and after the ALJ denied his motion, he petitioned
2 Each “PaySii receipt had a $10 fee charge for a total of $210. 5 87387-3-I/6
for review in superior court. On Goni’s unopposed motion, the superior court certified
the case for direct review in this court. 3
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
An ALJ’s final order in a proceeding to set child support is reviewed under the
judicial review provisions of the Washington Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA),
chapter 34.05 RCW. RCW 74.20A.055(1); WAC 388-14A-6120(6). We apply the
standards of the WAPA directly to the record before the agency on review. Tapper v.
Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 122 Wn.2d 397, 402, 858 P.2d 494 (1993). We review questions of
law and an agency’s application of the law de novo. Cornelius v. Dep’t of Ecology, 182
Wn.2d 574, 585, 344 P.3d 199 (2015).
This court grants relief from an agency decision if, among other things, the ALJ
erroneously interpreted or applied the law, if substantial evidence in the record does not
support the decision, or if the decision is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d),
(e), (i). Substantial evidence exists where the evidence is sufficient to persuade a fair-
minded person of the truth of the premise asserted. Cornelius, 182 Wn.2d at 607. When
a statute is within the agency’s area of expertise, we defer to the agency’s interpretation
of it. Crosswhite v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 197 Wn. App. 539, 549, 398 P.3d 731
(2017) (quoting Cornelius, 182 Wn.2d at 585). “Deference ‘is inappropriate when the
agency interpretation conflicts with the statute.’” Id. (quoting Brown v. Dep’t of Soc. &
Health Servs., 145 Wn. App. 177, 183, 185 P.3d 1210 (2008)).
Under RCW 74.20A.055(1), DCS can seek child support when there is no court
3 See RCW 34.05.518 (administrative agency final decision in an adjudicative proceeding is directly reviewable by court of appeals after superior court certification). 6 87387-3-I/7
order setting support or relieving a parent from having to pay. In all judicial or
administrative proceedings that determine or modify child support, the uniform “child
support schedule” applies. RCW 26.19.035(1)(b), (c); In re Marriage of Brockopp, 78
Wn. App. 441, 445, 898 P.2d 849 (1995). RCW 26.19.011(2) defines the “[c]hild support
schedule” as “the standards, economic table, worksheets, and instructions” of chapter
26.19 RCW. The legislature adopted the uniform child support schedule to equitably
apportion child support between parents, ensure that support meets a child’s basic
needs, and provide additional support corresponding with the parent’s income,
resources, and standard of living. RCW 26.19.001.
DCS or the court must base the basic child support obligation on the statutory
economic table when setting child support. In re Marriage of McCausland, 159 Wn.2d
607, 611, 152 P.3d 1013 (2007); RCW 26.19.011(1), 020. The economic table is
presumptive for combined monthly net incomes up to and including $50,000. RCW
26.19.065(3). DCS or the court must then allocate the child support obligation between
the parents based on the proportionate share of their combined monthly net incomes.
RCW 26.19.080(1).
Child Support
Goni disputes the ALJ’s finding that he does not have a minor child from another
relationship.
RCW 26.19.075(4) provides that child support deviations are discretionary
because “[w]hen reasons exist for deviation, the court shall exercise discretion in
considering the extent to which the factors would affect the support obligation.” “When
considering a deviation from the standard calculation for children from other
7 87387-3-I/8
relationships, the court may consider only other children to whom the parent owes a
duty of support.” RCW 26.19.075(1)(e)(iii) (emphasis added). Moreover, RCW
26.19.075(2) requires “specific reasons for deviation” in written findings of fact that are
supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, “[t]he court shall enter findings that
specify reasons for any deviation or any denial of a party’s request for any deviation.”
RCW 26.19.075(3). Overall, the ALJ must consider “the total circumstances of both
households” when determining whether to award a deviation based on child support
paid to children from other relationships. RCW 26.19.075(1)(e)(iv).
In Goni’s proposed child support worksheet, he stated that he pays $200 a month
for a child from another relationship. At the hearing, Goni testified that he has a minor
child from another relationship for whom he provides assistance and support. However,
he confirmed that there is no obligation that he pay child support for this child. The
record includes money receipts that Goni sent to “Xabiibo Xasan Sharaawe” totaling
$200 but there is no evidence in the record as to Goni’s relationship to Sharaawe or that
these payments are child support payments.
The ALJ did not enter written findings of fact acknowledging Goni’s testimony
that he has a minor child from another relationship. Rather, the ALJ concluded that
“Goni has no additional minor children.” The ALJ must provide specific reasons for its
decision in written findings of fact, supported by substantial evidence, as required under
RCW 26.19.075(2).
We note that in State v. Burns, the court defined the “duty of support” language in
RCW 26.19.075(1)(e)(iii). 190 Wn. App. 826, 832, 363 P.3d 1 (2015). The father in
Burns appealed a child support order declining his request for a downward deviation in
8 87387-3-I/9
child support based on children from another relationship after the trial court found that
his declaration alone did not provide sufficient evidence that he owed a duty of support
to another child. Id. at 829. The court agreed with the trial court and held that “to obtain
a deviation from the child support guidelines due to paying for the support of children
from other relationships, the parent must establish the existence of a judicially
enforceable support obligation concerning those children.” Id. at 835. The court
reasoned that “[b]ecause chapter 26.18 RCW is a mechanism by which courts can
enforce the support obligation, there must be sufficient formality to the obligation that a
court has something to enforce.” Id.
Goni is correct that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that
he does not have an additional minor child. It is not altogether clear if the ALJ
mistakenly did not consider Goni to be requesting a deviation from the standard child
support calculation, did not think the record supported whether Goni owed a duty to
support another child, or declined to consider a deviation for some other reason. The
record is absent of any written finding denying a request for deviation. Accordingly, we
reverse in part and remand for the ALJ to reconsider Goni’s claim as to this issue. Given
that we remand for reconsideration of this issue, we also direct the ALJ to conduct a
hearing, allowing Egal to appear and respond with the assistance of an interpreter to
any related exhibits that were not provided to her before or during the last hearing when
she had the assistance of an interpreter.
Income Calculation
Goni also contends that the ALJ misapplied the law by failing to classify his
$54,968 “[c]ar and truck expenses” as business expenses in determining his net
9 87387-3-I/10
income.
The federal tax code permits a taxpayer to treat certain depreciable business
assets as expenses and deduct the entire cost of the item in a taxable year. 26 U.S.C. §
179. RCW 26.19.071 sets the standards for determining income for child support and
explains how the court should calculate the monthly net income of each parent. “All
income and resources of each parent’s household shall be disclosed and considered by
the court when the court determines the child support obligation of each parent.” RCW
26.19.071(1). RCW 26.19.071(3) lists income sources that must be included when
calculating gross monthly income, such as salaries, wages, and commissions. RCW
26.19.071(5) includes income sources that “shall be disclosed and deducted from gross
monthly income to calculate net monthly income.” As applicable to this appeal, “[n]ormal
business expenses” for self-employed people must be deducted from gross income.
RCW 26.19.071(5)(i). However, “[j]ustification shall be required for any business
expense deduction about which there is disagreement.” RCW 26.19.071(5)(i).
At the hearing, the ALJ asked Egal whether she has any objection to Goni’s
exhibits and she replied that Goni’s exhibits are not correct and “[h]e has hidden his
income information” and “lied about them.” Therefore, there was a disagreement as to
Goni’s business expense deductions for which Goni was then required to provide
justification under RCW 26.19.071(5)(i).
The only possible explanation in the record as to Goni’s $54,968 in “[c]ar and
truck expenses” is that he claimed 89,645 business miles related to his vehicle. Goni
also indicated on the tax form that he uses the same vehicle for personal use when not
working but drove “0” miles for “[o]ther” and left blank the number of miles driven for
10 87387-3-I/11
commuting. In closing, Egal stated that Goni has his own car. To the extent Goni
provided June and July monthly expenses that include “[f]oul [sic],” dispatch fee,
insurance, toll, car maintenance, phone bill, and car wash, these expenses do not add
up to the almost $55,000 in “[c]ar and truck expenses” he claimed on his tax form.
Additionally, these monthly expenses were from 2023 so they would not even be
included in his 2022 tax return.
Based on this record, the ALJ’s finding that Goni’s $54,968 was vehicle
depreciation and not business expenses is supported by substantial evidence when
viewed in light of the whole record under RCW 26.19.071(5)(i).
CONCLUSION
Because the ALJ’s finding that Goni did not have an additional minor child is not
supported by substantial evidence, we reverse and remand for the ALJ to reconsider
what appears to be Goni’s request for a deviation based on a claim he supports another
child. Because the exhibits Goni relies on were not provided to Egal during or prior to
the hearing when she had the assistance of an interpreter, we direct the ALJ to conduct
another hearing to provide Egal with an opportunity to respond with the assistance of an
interpreter. We affirm the ALJ’s decision to not deduct Goni’s $54,968 “[c]ar and truck
expenses” from his gross income.
WE CONCUR: