F= 1L. E COURT O1=` APPEALS DIVA -'_^. , X
201 MAR 19 All 8: 4 7 S Ofd L\ SH WON ON
DEPOU-
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In re the Marriage of No. 42953 -5 -II
SUZANNE PAULSEN,
Respondent,
V.
TIMOTHY PAULSEN, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JOHANSON, J. — Timothy Paulsen appeals several provisions of the trial court' s
parenting plan, order of child support, spousal maintenance and attorney -fees awards, and its finding of contempt in his dissolution proceeding against Suzanne Paulsen. Timothy' argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it (1) imposed restrictions on Timothy' s residential time
with his children, ( 2) granted Suzanne sole decision making for the children' s religious
litem' s ( GAL) 4) considered fault in upbringing, ( 3) relied on the guardian ad recommendations, (
debts 5) calculated the parties' income for child support dividing the couple' s and assets, (
purposes, ( 6) ordered Timothy to pay maintenance to Suzanne, ( 7) ordered Timothy to pay
their first for clarity, intending no disrespect. We refer to the parties by name No. 42953 -5 -II
Suzanne' s attorney fees, and ( 8) found Timothy in contempt for failure to pay court- ordered
child support.
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed restrictions on
Timothy' s residential time with his children and gave Suzanne sole decision - making authority
for the children' s religious upbringing. There is substantial evidence that Timothy' s use of
religion to manipulate children and his past sexual abuse of minors posed a serious risk of actual
or potential harm to the children. Additionally, because there is no evidence that the trial court
considered anything improper and because there is substantial evidence to support the trial
court' s ruling, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it divided the parties' debts and assets, calculated their income for child support, ordered Timothy to pay
spousal maintenance, and ordered him to pay Suzanne' s attorney fees. Finally, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion when it found Timothy in contempt for failing to pay previously ordered
child support because inability to pay is not, in itself, a sufficient argument against disobeying a
lawful court order. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS _
Suzanne in 1992 and separated in 2009. In 2010, Suzanne Timothy and were married
filed a petition for dissolution. Their marriage produced three children, ages 11, 9, and 6 at the
time of filing. Before trial, the court appointed a GAL to investigate allegations of
physical /sexual abuse of the children by Timothy and the parenting abilities of both parents.
Among other things, the GAL investigated allegations that Timothy had several inappropriate relationships with teenagers during the marriage. In her report, the GAL explained her belief
that Timothy had a history of severely abusing his position of trust as a teacher to manipulate
impressionable teenagers, failed to respect boundaries, and engaged in sexually deviant behavior.
2 No. 42953 -5 - II
Ultimately, the GAL recommended that Suzanne have primary custody of the children and that
time supervised visits. At the time of trial, Timothy' s residential consist solely of professionally
a parenting plan, child support, the couple' s division of debts and assets, and spousal
maintenance were all at issue.
The trial court heard testimony from several witnesses about Timothy' s prior
relationships with several of his students. One witness, R.B., testified that he met Timothy when
his grade physical education teacher. Timothy invited R.B. to Timothy was seventh
overnighters" at his home, wanted to become his mentor, and wanted to make his home a
second home for R.B. because R.B.' s parents were going through a divorce. Timothy and R.B.
spent significant time together, regularly wrestled, and had "[ a] lot of physical touch" between
them. 2 Report of Proceedings ( RP) at 154. Starting when R.B. was in ninth grade, R.B.
believed there was a " crossing of boundaries" with respect to nudity, and Timothy engaged in several more " overt sexual contact[ s]" including touching R.B.' s genitals. 2 RP at 168, 171.
Timothy' s sexual touching of R.B. continued until R.B. was 16 or 17 years old. Another witness, A.D., testified that she met Timothy when she was 13 on a junior high - -
field trip; Timothy was one of the teacher supervisors on the trip. Timothy started his
relationship with A.D. talking to her about the trouble she was having with her parents, and she began spending a lot of time alone with him. A.D. spent the night at the Paulsen home on a
basis junior high high She and Timothy often wrestled. She also regular during and school.
testified about " encouragement letters" that Timothy wrote to her, similar to the letters that he
had written to R.B. After she graduated from high school, her relationship with Timothy
changed, progressing to sexual intercourse. A.D. testified that beginning when she was 13, she
3 No. 42953 -5 - II
felt that Timothy sexually groomed and manipulated her. She also testified that she had seen
Timothy wrestle with his children in the same way he wrestled with her.
Jennifer Knight, a therapist who met with Suzanne, Timothy, and their children, testified
that she believed that Timothy engaged in classic sexual abuse grooming behaviors of children
and used religion as a grooming technique— citing scripture, telling children how much he
thanked the Lord that the children were in his life, and praying to God on their behalf. Knight
explained that was the practice of suffocating a child with overbearing grooming
communication, such as saying, " I love you" over and over, making the child become dependent
on the person. 1 RP at 130. Knight believed Timothy posed a threat to the safety and well - being
of his own children, and his use of religion was a major concern because Timothy used religion
to weaken the defenses of children, and his own children expressed that they were uncomfortable
praying with him.
Dr. Allen Traywick, a psychologist who evaluated Timothy to determine whether
Timothy was sexually deviant and a risk to his children, testified that Timothy admitted to
sexually abusing R.B. Dr. Traywick also testified that Timothy told him he resigned from his
teaching job because a student' s parents accused him of " grooming" children. Timothy told Dr.
Traywick that he used religion as a grooming technique, that someone reported him to the police,
and that the school district investigated him after a third boy' s parents found letters Timothy had
written to him. Ultimately, Dr. Traywick did not believe that Timothy was sexually dangerous to his own children because he had shown remorse for his actions and had undergone counseling.
The GAL testified about her investigation and her concern with Timothy' s parenting.
One of her major concerns was Timothy' s use of religion and that his religious grooming
EI No. 42953 -5 -II
practices had been the subject of several disciplinary actions by the school district. She also
believed that Timothy' s use of religion was emotionally damaging to his own children.
Suzanne testified that she had been a full -ime school teacher, but stopped working after t
their second child was born to raise their children and home school them. When she did so, her
public school teacher certification lapsed.
Suzanne and Timothy separated in 2009 after he admitted to having a past sexual
relationship with A.D. After the separation, Suzanne could no longer home school their children. She enrolled them at Heritage Christian School so she could begin working again. At the time of
trial, Suzanne was a physical education teacher and athletic director at Heritage Christian School,
was the advanced director of her own Pampered Chef business, was a part-time substitute teacher
at Bates Technical College, and worked at NBC sports camps in the summers. In order to renew
her public school teaching certificate, Suzanne needed to complete recertification training.
Suzanne was uncomfortable allowing Timothy to see the children after learning about his relationships with R.B. and A.D. and, as a result, Timothy rarely saw the children. Suzanne also
testified about Timothy' s relationships with several other students that she felt were inappropriate. When Suzanne allowed Timothy to see their children, she believed that he
push[ ed] boundaries," and she was uncomfortable with his manipulative use of religion around
them. 3 PR at 401.
Suzanne asked the court to award maintenance of $500 a month for a year so that she
Her financial could complete recertification training for her public school teaching certificate.
declaration stated that her gross monthly income was nearly $ 3, 000 a month; but after business
expenses, her net income was $ 1, 915 a month and her monthly household expenses were over
5, 600 a month.
5 No. 42953 -5 - II
She also testified about Timothy' s income. After Timothy resigned his teaching position,
he became a real estate agent, worked for a business leadership camp, and also worked odd jobs
such as remodeling and painting houses. Suzanne submitted documentation that Timothy made
around $ 6, 000 a month from his real estate business alone; but at the time of trial, Timothy was
approximately $ 22, 000 behind on court- ordered child support. Suzanne asked the court to find
Timothy in contempt of that order because he failed to pay the required child support and
maintenance.
At trial, Timothy admitted to sexually abusing R.B. and gave the court details of how and
when the sexual abuse occurred. Timothy stated it was " inappropriate and [ he] recogniz[ ed]
later] that it was wrong to- do." 4 RP at 568. He also testified about the counseling and sexual
addiction classes he had undergone since victimizing R.B. Partially because of the supervision
costs, Timothy often did not exercise his right to see his children. Timothy testified that his
income was substantially lower than Suzanne alleged it was. He testified that his gross income
was only $ 1, 500 a month, and that the court ordered him to pay $3, 400 a month in child support.
He testified- about inconsistency in the real estate business, -about how he was struggling
financially because his business had taken a hit from the economy, and about expenses necessary
to maintain his business. He objected to Suzanne' s request for a contempt ruling because he did
not have the money to pay the amount of ordered child support or maintenance. He also testified
about his proposal for the division of property.
The court submitted its oral ruling on November 4, 2011. 2 The court' s written orders are
in our record. The court ordered that the children would reside with Suzanne except for every
Wednesday evening and Sunday afternoon when Timothy would have professionally supervised
three - hour visits.
The court also gave Timothy professionally supervised three -hour visits on certain
holidays and three 15- minute phone calls with the children each week, finding that Timothy' s
residential time with the children must be limited because he engaged in physical, sexual, or a
pattern of emotional abuse of children under RCW 26. 09. 191( 2). The court also found that
Timothy' s conduct or parental involvement may not be in the children' s best interests due to the existence of a long -term emotional or physical impairment which interferes with the performance
of a parenting function under RCW 26. 09. 191( 3). The court found that " the whole litany of
inappropriate sexual fondling of minor boys who are later now grown men ... is indicative of
being an abuse of trust, abuse of power and position." Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 208.
The court' s distribution of property resulted in a 50/ 50 split between Suzanne and
Timothy. The court also -awarded Suzanne spousal maintenance of $500 a-month for 12 months, and restrained Timothy from disturbing the peace of Suzanne and being present at any of the
children' s school or extracurricular activities unless another adult was present. The court
awarded judgment against Timothy for back child support and ordered that Timothy continue to
pay $ 1, 544 a month in child support— calculated by the standard calculation on the child support
worksheets, plus 65 percent of the children' s private school tuition and sports and activity fees.
2 We do not have a verbatim report of the November 4 hearing. ( RAP 9. 5( c) puts a burden on the respondent to supplement, or move to compel appellant to supplement the record on appeal.)
7 No. 42953 -5 -II
The court also awarded Suzanne attorney fees, finding Timothy in contempt for his failure to pay
over $22, 000 in child support. Timothy appeals.
ANALYSIS
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The issues in this case relate to the trial court' s final dissolution decree, parenting plan,
and child support order and we review them for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Caven,
136 Wn.2d 800, 806, 966 P. 2d 1247 ( 1998); In re Marriage of Griffin, 114 Wn.2d 772, 776, 791
P. 2d 519 ( 1990). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable or
based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. In re Marriage of Muhammad, 153 Wn.2d
795, 803, 108 P. 3d 779 ( 2005). A trial court' s decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside
the range of acceptable choices, given the facts and the applicable legal standard. In re Marriage
of Bowen, 168 Wn. App. 581, 586 -87, 279 P.3d 885, review denied, 176 Wn.2d 1009 ( 2012). The decision rests on untenable grounds if the factual findings are unsupported by the record;
and it is based on untenable reasons if it relies on an incorrect standard or the facts do not meet
the requirements of the correct standard. - Bowen, 168 Wn. App. at 586 -87. We will uphold a -
trial court' s findings of fact if substantial evidence supports them. In re Marriage of Bernard,
165 Wn.2d 895, 903, 204 P. 3d 907 ( 2009). Evidence is substantial if it is sufficient to persuade a
fair - minded person of the truth of the declared premise. Bernard, 165 Wn.2d at 903. We defer
to the trial court on witness credibility and the persuasiveness of the evidence. In re Marriage of
Akon, 160 Wn. App. 48, 57, 248 P. 3d 94 ( 2011). We then determine whether the trial court' s
findings of fact support the trial court' s conclusions of law. In re Marriage of Rockwell, 141
Wn. 235, 242, 170 P. 3d 572 ( 2007), review denied, 163 Wn.2d 1055 ( 2008). App. No. 42953 -5 -II
PARENTING PLAN
Timothy argues that ( 1) the trial court erred when it imposed restrictions on his
residential time with his children pursuant to RCW 26. 09. 191, ( 2) the trial court erred When it
granted Suzanne sole decision making for the children' s religious upbringing because there was
no affirmative evidence that his religion would pose any actual or potential harm to the children,
and ( 3) the GAL' s recommendations were not supported by substantial evidence. Suzanne
responds that ( 1) the statute required the trial court to restrict Timothy' s residential time under
RCW 26. 09. 191, ( 2) the court' s religious restriction was necessary to prevent Timothy from
using religion to manipulate the children, and ( 3) the court properly relied on the GAL' s
recommendations. We agree with Suzanne.
We review a plan for abuse of discretion. Caven, 136 Wn.2d at 806. In parenting
fashioning a parenting plan, the court' s discretion must be guided by several provisions of the
Parenting Act of 1987 ( ch. 26. 09 RCW), including RCW 26. 09. 191. In re Marriage of Katare,
175 Wn.2d 23, 35 -36, 283 P. 3d 546 ( 2012),. cent. denied, 133 S. Ct. 889 ( 2013). This statute
requires that a court limit" a parent' s residential time if that parent has engaged in physical,
sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child. RCW 26. 09. 191( 2)( x); Katare, 175 Wn.2d at
35 -36. If a court limits a parent' s residential time for this reason, the limitation must be
reasonably calculated to protect the child from physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm by that parent. RCW 26. 09. 191( 2)( m)( i); Katare, 175 Wn.2d at 36. Appropriate limitations include
supervised visits. RCW 26. 09. 191( 2)( m)( i). Also, a court can limit any provision of a parenting
plan based on factors the court expressly finds adverse to the best interests of the children. RCW
26. 09. 191( 3)( g); Katare, 175 Wn.2d at 36.
9 No. 42953 -5 - II
A. RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTIONS
The court found that Timothy' s residential time with the children should be limited
because he engaged in physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of children under RCW
26. 09. 191( 2). The court also found that Timothy' s parental involvement or conduct may not be
in the children' s best interests because of the existence of a long - term emotional or physical
impairment which interferes with the performance of a parenting function under RCW
26.09. 191( 3). 3 4 Substantial evidence supports these findings. Timothy admitted to sexually abusing
R.B., giving details of how and when the sexual abuse occurred. Timothy testified it was
inappropriate and [ he] recogniz[ ed] that it was wrong to do." 4 RP at 568. R.B. also testified,
in detail, about his relationship with Timothy, including the sexual abuse. Dr. Traywick testified
that Timothy admitted to sexually abusing R.B. during Dr. Traywick' s evaluation. Timothy
admitted that he used religion to manipulate R.B. and others.
A.D. testified that although she did not engage in sexual intercourse with Timothy until
she turned 18; she felt sexually groomed and manipulated by Timothy from age 13. Knight after
testified that she believed Timothy engaged in classic sexual abuse grooming behaviors and
posed. a threat to the safety and well - being of his own children. She also testified that Timothy
3 The court also found that " the whole litany of inappropriate sexual fondling of minor boys who are later now grown men . . . is indicative of being an abuse of trust, abuse of power and position." CP atAlthough the record does not wholly support this finding, because there is 208. direct evidence of sexual fondling of a single minor boy, the record supports the other findings and these findings are sufficient to support the conclusion that Timothy' s residential time should be limited.
4 In his appellate brief, Timothy admits that he sexually abused R.B. and that he had a sexual relationship with A.D. ce No. 42953 -5 -II
used religion to weaken the defenses of children, and his children expressed that they were
uncomfortable praying with him.
The GAL testified about her investigation and expressed concern with Timothy' s
parenting. A major concern was Timothy' s use of religion and his religious grooming practices, which were the subject of several school district disciplinary actions. She also believed that
Timothy' s use of religion caused emotional damage to his children. Finally, the court considered
several letters written to his minor -aged victims demonstrating his grooming technique and use
of religion to gain the children' s emotional dependency. Substantial evidence supports the
court' s findings that Timothy sexually and / or emotionally abused children. Because the court
found that Timothy had a history of engaging in sexual and/ or emotional abuse of children and
that his inappropriate relationships with minors may have an adverse affect on the children, it
was required to limit Timothy' s residential time under RCW 26. 09. 191( 2)( a).
The court ordered that the children reside with Suzanne except for every Wednesday
have professionally supervised visits. The evening and Sunday afternoon when Timothy would
court also gave Timothy professionally supervised three -hour visits on certain holidays and three 15- minute phone calls with the children each week. RCW 26. 09. 191( 2)( m)( i) specifically
provides for supervised visitation as an appropriate limitation when the parent has engaged in
sexual abuse of children under RCW 26. 09. 191( 2)( a). Therefore, we cannot say that the court
abused its discretion in ordering supervised visits when the statute specifically provides for supervised visits under these circumstances. Bowen, 168 Wn. App. at 586 -87.
Nonetheless, Timothy argues that the court did not reasonably calculate its restrictions to
protect his children because his last incident of sexual abuse of a child occurred 13 years prior to
trial and he had undergone therapy since then. But Timothy does not cite any authority to
11 No. 42953 -5 -II
support his argument that a time lapse or completion of treatment since admitting to sexual abuse
requires the court to disregard the requirements of RCW 26. 09. 191( 2)( a). Without such
authority, he fails to show that the trial court abused its discretion when there is substantial
evidence of his history of sexually and emotionally abusing children and there is evidence he
engaged in inappropriate grooming of his own children. We find no abuse of discretion or error
of law.
B. RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
A trial court has wide latitude of discretion in ordering parenting restrictions based on the
best interests and welfare of the children. Munoz v. Munoz, 79 Wn.2d 810, 813 -14, 489 P. 2d
1133 ( 1971). Under this wide latitude of discretion, a court may restrict a parent' s religious
decision making when there is an affirmative showing of compelling reasons to do so. Munoz,
79 Wn.2d at 813 -14.
Timothy argues that the trial court erred when it granted Suzanne sole decision making for the children' s religious upbringing because the trial court did not make a finding that
religious beliefs harm to the children. The court' s order provided Timothy' s posed a potential
decision in health care, and religious that Timothy' s making education, nonemergency
upbringing must be limited because of (1) the existence of a limitation under RCW 26.09. 191, 2) the history of participation of each parent in decision making, ( 3) the parents' demonstrated
ability to cooperate with one another in these areas, and ( 4) the parents' geographic proximity to one another. The court' s order also provided that "[ p] rayer or the discussions of religious
matters shall not be allowed between the father and the children." CP at 207.
There is substantial evidence that because Timothy used religion as a tool to manipulate
and groom children, restricting Timothy' s religious .decision making was in the best interests of 12 No. 42953 -5 -II
the children. Knight testified that Timothy used religion as a grooming technique, citing
scripture and talking to them about God and praying. Knight believed Timothy threatened the
his children, and she expressed a concern about his use of religion. She safety and well - being of
also testified that Timothy had used religion to weaken the defenses of children in the past and
that his own children expressed that they were uncomfortable praying with him.
Dr. Traywick also testified that Timothy admitted he was accused of using religion to
groom children, and admitted his religious grooming conduct eventually led him to resign from
As his grooming he wrote " encouragement letters" to his teaching position. part of practice,
children. Included in the court' s records were several of these letters, and the court considered
them in its ruling.
The GAL also testified about Timothy' s use of religion being the subject of several
school district disciplinary actions and Timothy' s use of religion was emotionally damaging to the children. The trial court neither abused its discretion nor infringed upon Timothy' s free
exercise of religion when ( 1) it ruled that Timothy' s religious decision making should be limited
and ( 2) it ruled he should not discuss religion with his children because there was substantial
evidence that Timothy' s use of religion posed an actual or potential harm to the children. C. GAL' S RECOMMENDATIONS
Third, Timothy argues that there was no substantial evidence supporting the GAL' s recommendation that his residential time should be limited and supervised because Dr. Traywick danger to his children. We defer to the trial court on also testified that Timothy was not a
and the persuasiveness of the evidence. Akon, 160 Wn. App. at 57. After witness credibility
hearing all the evidence presented, the trial court was free to find Dr. Traywick' s testimony less the GAL' Although Timothy argues that the GAL' s persuasive than s testimony.
13 No. 42953 -5 -II
recommendations were unsupported by the substantial evidence, this is a misplaced argument
because we do not review whether substantial evidence supports the GAL' s recommendation;
rather, we review whether substantial evidence supports the trial court' s findings and whether
those findings support its conclusions. Because we already determined that the trial court was
required to limit Timothy' s residential time with the children under RCW 26. 09. 191( 2)( x), the
trial court did not abuse its discretion by agreeing with the GAL that Timothy' s residential time
should be limited.
DIVISION OF DEBTS AND ASSETS
Next, Timothy argues that the trial court improperly divided the couple' s debts and
assets. He asserts that the trial court ( 1) considered his sexual abuse history when it divided the
property, ( 2) allowed Suzanne to inflate the property awarded to Timothy and deflate the
awarded to her, ( 3) should not have awarded Suzanne $ 11, 000 in mortgage payments property
Timothy did not make, and ( 4) failed to consider the $ 125, 000 in equity the parties removed
from their home and placed into mutual funds. Suzanne responds that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion because ( l)-the record does not support the assertion -that the -trial court
considered Timothy' s sexual abuse history, ( 2) her testimony supported the value of the couple' s
Timothy' s liability of $ 11, 000 for mortgage property, ( 3) the trial court properly recognized
payments he agreed to pay, and ( 4) the record shows that the court properly analyzed all the
couple' s debts and assets. We agree with Suzanne.
The trial court has broad discretion in distributing marital property, and we reverse only
if it has manifestly abused its discretion. Rockwell, 141 Wn. App. at 242 -43. In reaching a " just
four factors: ( 1) the nature and property division, trial and equitable" a court must consider
extent of the community property, ( 2) the nature and extent of the separate property, ( 3) the
14 No. 42953 -5 -II
duration of the marriage, and ( 4) the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the
become RCW 26. 09. 080; Rockwell, 141 Wn. App. 242. All property division will effective. at
property, community and separate, is before the court for distribution. In re Marriage ofBrewer,
137 Wn.2d 756, 766, 976 P. 2d 102 ( 1999). We will not substitute our judgment for that of the
trial court on a disputed factual issue such as the valuation of property. Worthington v.
Worthington, 73 Wn.2d 759, 762, 440 P. 2d 478 ( 1968).
Timothy' s assertions that the court improperly considered his sexual abuse history when
it divided the property and his assertion that the trial court should not have awarded Suzanne 11, 000 in mortgage payments are unsupported by citation to the record or to any authority. Nor
did we find any support in the record for his assertion that the trial court considered Timothy' s sexual abuse history when it divided the property. Timothy has shown no error.
Next, Timothy argues that the court allowed Suzanne to inflate the value of his property while deflating the value of her property. We do not review Suzanne' s assertions; rather, we
review the trial court' s decisions. As Timothy admits, the trial court based its determinations, in
part, on credibility decisions and we do not review credibility on appeal. - Akon,- 160 Wn. App. at 57. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court on a disputed factual issue such
as the valuation of property. Worthington, 73 Wn.2d at 762. The decree of dissolution lists the
property awarded to each spouse, lists the values that the court used, and shows that the trial court split the couple' s property 50/ 50. Timothy' s argument does not show that the trial court
abused its discretion in its 50/ 50 split of the property.
Both parties testified to the valuation of their assets. The trial court, taking the testimony
both Suzanne, credibility determinations. Because we will not substitute of Timothy and made
our judgment for that of the trial court and will not review its credibility determinations, we hold
15 No. 42953 -5 -II
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it valued the debts and assets and divided the
couple' s debts and assets equally.
CHILD SUPPORT
Timothy argues that the trial court erred when it calculated the parties' income for child
support purposes because ( 1) the court should have found Suzanne underemployed and imputed
a higher income for her, ( 2) the court did not accept Timothy' s actual income and instead relied
on Suzanne' s assertion of what Timothy' s income was, and ( 3) the court should not have ordered
Timothy to pay a share of the private school tuition when he had no say in the decision to incur the expense. We disagree.
We review child support orders for an abuse of discretion. Griffin, 114 Wn.2d at 776.
Each child support order must meet the children' s basic needs and provide additional financial
support commensurate with the parents' income, resources, and standards of living. RCW
26. 19. 001; In re Marriage ofAyyad, 110 Wn. App. 462, 467, 38 P. 3d 1033, review denied, 147
Wn. 2d 1016 ( 2002). RCW 26. 19. 071( 6) requires a court to impute income to a parent who is
voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. A court is• required to base its decision to impute
income on the parent' s work history, education, health, age, and any other relevant factor. RCW
26. 19. 071( 6); In re Marriage of Pollard, 99 Wn. App. 48, 52 -53, 991 P. 2d 1201 ( 2000). " If the
court decides the parent is ` gainfully employed on a full -ime basis,' but also underemployed, the t
court makes a further determination whether the parent is purposely underemployed to reduce his
or her support obligation." Pollard, 99 Wn. App. at 53 ( quoting RCW 26. 19. 071( 6)).
First, Timothy argues that the court should have found Suzanne underemployed and
imputed a higher income for her because she had let her teacher certification lapse and had not
completed her certification since the couple separated. Suzanne' s testimony supports that she
10 No. 42953 -5 -II
was not underemployed. Although she had been a full -ime teacher before having children, t
Suzanne testified that her public school teaching certification lapsed after she had her second
child because she and Timothy agreed that she would be a stay -at -home mom and raise the
children. But at the time of trial, Suzanne was working several jobs. Because of Timothy' s and
Suzanne' s conflicting testimony about how much money Suzanne could or should have been free to determine testimony was more persuasive. We do not making, the trial court was whose
disturb those credibility determinations. Akon, 160 Wn. App. at 57. The trial court did not abuse
its discretion in rejecting Timothy' s contention that Suzanne was underemployed.
Next, Timothy argues that the court did not accept his actual income and instead relied on Suzanne' s assertion of what Timothy' s income was. Again, when faced with conflicting
testimony, the trial court is free to determine whose testimony was more persuasive. Akon, 160 Wn. App. at 57. We do not disturb those findings.
Finally, Timothy argues that the court should not have ordered him to pay a share of the private school tuition because he had no say in the decision to incur the expense and the court
failed to consider his to pay. - Br. of Appellant at 2-1 ( citing In re - Marriage of ability
McCausland, 129 Wn. App, 390, 412, 118 P. 3d 944 ( 2005), rev' d on other grounds, 159 Wn.2d
607, 152 P. 3d 1013 ( 2007)). RCW 26. 19. 080( 3) states, "[ S] pecial child rearing expenses, such
as tuition ... are not included in the economic table. These expenses shall be shared by the
parents in the same proportion as the basic child support obligation." RCW 26. 19. 080( 3). The
trial court has discretion to determine the " necessity for and the reasonableness of payments in
excess of the basic child support obligation. RCW 26. 19. 080( 4); State ex rel. J.V.G. v. Van
Guilder, 137 Wn. App. 417, 427, 154 P. 3d 243 ( 2007). A trial court is required to make findings
17 No. 42953 -5 -II
about a parent' s ability to pay for extraordinary expenses whenever the objecting parent raises
the issue. J.V.G., 137 Wn. App. at 429.
Because Timothy failed to object to the private school tuition, the court was not required
to make special findings about his ability to pay. Timothy' s failure to object to the private
school tuition as an extraordinary expense is fatal to his argument here because the court had to
make special findings about his ability to pay if he first raised the issue. J.V.G., 137 Wn. App. at
429. Therefore, he cannot show that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay
65 percent of the private school tuition.
MAINTENANCE
Timothy argues that the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay maintenance to
Suzanne because it found Timothy' s income was substantially higher than it was, he does not
have the ability to pay, Suzanne is capable of supporting herself but is underemployed, and " this d] to living high the hog." Br. of Appellant at 23. Again, we disagree was not a family use[ on
that the trial court erred.
An award of spousal maintenance is within the trial court' s discretion. In re Marriage o -
Crosetto, 82 Wn. App. 545, 558, 918 P. 2d 954 ( 1996). Maintenance not based on a fair
consideration of the statutory factors constitutes an abuse of discretion. Crosetto, 82 Wn. App.
at 558. The nonexclusive list of statutory factors includes the parties' post -dissolution financial
resources; the time needed for the party seeking maintenance to become self - sufficient; the
duration of marriage; the standard of living during marriage; the parties' age, health, and
financial obligations; and the ability of one spouse to pay maintenance to the other. RCW
26. 09. 090. The only limitation on the amount and duration of maintenance is that the award must be just in light of the relevant factors under RCW 26.09. 090. In re Marriage of Washburn,
18 No. 42953 -5 -II
101 Wn.2d 168, 178, 677 P. 2d 152 ( 1984). "[ M] aintenance is not just a means of providing bare
necessities, but rather a flexible tool by which the parties' standard of living may be equalized
for an appropriate period of time." Washburn, 101 Wn.2d at 179.
Other than a bare assertion that the trial court erred, Timothy fails to show how the trial
court abused its discretion. Because we defer to the trial court' s determinations regarding
credibility and the persuasiveness of the evidence, we cannot find on this record that the trial
court abused its discretion in awarding maintenance.
SUPERIOR COURT ATTORNEY FEES
Timothy argues that the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it ordered him to
pay Suzanne' s attorney fees because " Dr. Traywick evaluated [ Timothy] and determined he was not a danger to his children, and [ Suzanne' s] real reason for filing for dissolution was
Timothy' s] affair with [ A.D.]." Br. of Appellant at 23 -24. Timothy also argues that he does not
have the ability to pay attorney fees. We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its
discretion in awarding attorney fees to Suzanne.
When a party argues an issue without any reference to the record or citation to authority,
we do not consider the issue. RAP 10. 3( a)( 6); Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118
Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P. 2d 549 ( 1992). Because we do not consider inadequately argued issues,
we uphold the trial court' s decisions. Cowiche, 118 Wn.2d at 809. A trial court has discretion to
Ayyad, 110 Wn. App. 473. The court must attorney fees to either at award reasonable party.
consider the financial resources of both parties by balancing the requesting party' s need for a fee award against the other s ability to pay. Ayyad, 110 Wn. App. at 473. In calculating a party'
reasonable amount of fees, the court must consider three factors: "( 1) the factual and legal
ILI No. 42953 -5 -II
questions involved; ( 2) the amount of time necessary for preparation and presentation of the
case; and ( 3) the value and character of the property involved." Ayyad, 110 Wn. App. at 473.
Neither the record nor any citation to legal authority supports Timothy' s short and
conclusory argument. Because Timothy failed to adequately argue the issue in his brief, we
uphold the trial court' s award of Suzanne' s attorney fees.
CONTEMPT
Last, Timothy argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it found him in
contempt for failure to pay child support because he did not have the ability to pay. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
We review a trial court' s decision in a contempt proceeding for an abuse of discretion. In
Marriage of James, 79 Wn. 436, 439 -40, 903 P. 2d 470 ( 1995). Contempt of court is, in re App.
part, the intentional disobedience of a lawful court order. In re Marriage ofHumphreys, 79 Wn.
App. 596, 599, 903 P. 2d 1012 ( 1995). Timothy' s argument is very brief. After citing RCW
26. 18. 050( 1), Timothy states, " Here, as argued above, [ Timothy] did not have the ability to pay,
therefore cannot be held in contempt. The trial court' s finding of contempt-should be vacated."
Br. of Appellant at 25. Again, neither the record nor citation to legal authority supports
Timothy' s argument; thus, we do not consider the issue, and uphold the trial court' s finding that Timothy was in contempt.
ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL
Suzanne requests attorney fees on appeal under RAP 18. 1 and Thompson v. Lennox, 151 Wn. App. 479, 484, 212 P. 3d 597 ( 2009), arguing that, generally, if attorney fees are allowable at
trial, the prevailing party may recover them on appeal as well.
20 No. 42953 -5 -II
In dissolutions, RCW 26.09. 140 allows us to award appellate attorney fees to a party for
the cost of maintaining an appeal of a dissolution case. In doing so, we must consider the
requesting party' s financial need and the other party' s ability to pay. Ayyad, 110 Wn. App. at
474. A showing of financial need must be made by affidavit and filed no later than 10 days before this court is scheduled to consider the appeal. RAP 18. 1( c). Suzanne did not file an
affidavit of need; therefore, she is not entitled to fees under RCW 26. 09. 140.
We affirm.
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.
I T` ON, J. We concur:
W6RSWICK, C. J.
J/ 0 $, B RGYN, J.