In the Matter of the Guardianship of: L.A.M. & E.M.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: April 16, 2024
• Docket: 39085-3
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED APRIL 16, 2024 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of the Guardianship of ) ) No. 39085-3-III L.A.M., ) Consolidated with ) ) In the Matter of the Guardianship of ) No. 39086-3-III ) E.M., ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION )

STAAB, J. — Randall Meek, Sr., and Stephanie Meek (Meeks) appeal the trial

court’s decision denying their petition for minor guardianship of L.A.M. and E.M., and

instead granting Ellen Barnett’s petition as guardian of the two children. They argue the

court’s conclusion that granting Barnett’s petition was in the best interest of the children

is not supported by the findings. Under the deferential standard, we conclude that the

court did not abuse its discretion. The unchallenged oral findings support the conclusion

that keeping the children with Barnett was in the childrens’ best interest.

FACTS

The following facts are unchallenged. No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III) In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.

This appeal concerns two minor children, L.A.M., age 9, and E.M., age 4, at the

time of trial. The children have the same mother. L.A.M.’s father is Randall Meek, Jr.

E.M.’s father is Arturo Martinez; however, it is undisputed that Martinez has not

participated in E.M.’s life and Randall Meek, Jr. was E.M.’s father figure.

Ellen Barnett is the maternal grandmother to the children. Barnett sought

guardianship of L.A.M. and E.M. The Meeks intervened in Barnett’s petitions because

they also wanted guardianship of L.A.M. and E.M.1

All three biological parents recognized their limitations and consented to the

Meeks being named as guardians to their children. Each parent signed a “Parent’s

Consent to Minor Guardianship” form. E.M. was living with Barnett in Springdale,

Washington since February 2017, and L.A.M. was living with her since April 2013.

The court granted Barnett’s petition for minor guardianship of L.A.M. In doing

so, the court found that L.A.M. had lived with Barnett for most of her nine years of life.

For the first few years, L.A.M. only stayed there sporadically but has now stayed with her

since April 2013. L.A.M. has fully integrated and bonded with extended relatives that

live in Springdale. She is close with two of her aunts that are close in age and has

1 Simultaneously, the Meeks filed their own petition seeking guardianship of the oldest child, N.M. Barnett intervened in their petition seeking to be named N.M.’s guardian. N.M., who has special needs, has been living with the Meeks in Deer Park, Washington since the summer of 2016. The court granted the Meeks’ petition for minor guardianship of N.M., and that order is not on appeal.

2 No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III) In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.

attended a small school in Springdale where she is doing well and has made a lot of

friends. In addition, she is involved in extracurricular activities like little league and

cheerleading.

While the Meeks accused Barnett of drug use, Barnett denied any drug use and

provided a negative drug test. The court found the allegations were not credible and

declined to remove L.A.M. from her care. Although the biological parents consented to

the Meeks being L.A.M.’s guardian, the court found that “uprooting [L.A.M.] from all

that she has ever known, including the extended family that she has grown up with, is not

in her best interest.” Rep. of Proc. (RP) (May 26, 2022) at 158. Accordingly, it granted

Barnett’s petition and proposed residential schedule while denying the Meeks’ petition

for guardianship of L.A.M.

The court also granted Barnett’s petition for minor guardianship of E.M. The

testimony reflected that E.M. is a bright three-year-old boy who is integrated into

Barnett’s home with his extended relatives and is very close with his sister. He has not

been integrated as long as L.A.M., but it is all he has known. In addition, he has been on

a long waitlist to get into preschool, participates in wrestling, and plays tee ball in

Springdale. Although the biological parents consented to the Meeks’ guardianship of

E.M., the court found uprooting him “from all that he’s ever known, including the

extended family that he’s grown up living with, is not in his best interest.” RP (May 26,

3 No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III) In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.

2022) at 160. Accordingly, the court granted Barnett’s petition and proposed residential

schedule while denying the Meeks’ petition.

The court allowed visitation upon its denial of the competing minor guardianship

petitions, allowing the Meeks visitation every other weekend from 3:00 p.m. on Friday to

Sunday at 5:00 p.m. In addition, the court noted it knew the Meeks were not happy, but it

“had a big concern with uprooting the children from the routine that they have had for

years.” RP (May 26, 2022) at 162. The court did not “hear anything that indicated that it

would be [ ] unsafe” and it found it would be far more disruptive to take them away from

what they have become accustomed to and integrated into their life. RP (May 26, 2022)

at 162.

The Meeks appeal.

ANALYSIS

In 2019, the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective

Arrangements Act was adopted by the legislature in Washington. See ch. 11.130 RCW.

Part of this statute outlines requirements for the appointment of a guardian for a minor

child if nominated by a parent:

(a) The court shall appoint a person nominated as guardian by a parent of the minor in a probated will or other record unless the court finds the appointment is contrary to the best interest of the minor. Any “other record” must be a declaration or other sworn document and may include a

4 No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III) In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.

power of attorney or other sworn statement as to the care, custody, or control of the minor child.

RCW 11.130.215(2)(a).

The statute does not address a standard of review for a trial court’s decision on

whom to appoint as a child’s guardian, however, a recent Division One case determined

that it would be abuse of discretion. See In re Guardianship of L.C., __ Wn. App. 2d __,

538 P.3d 309, 313 (2023) (noting that who should be appointed as a child’s guardian is a

fact-intensive inquiry that trial courts are necessarily in a better position than the

appellate courts to decide). A court abuses its discretion if its decision is “unreasonable”

or based on “‘untenable grounds or reasons.’” In re Marriage of Abbess, 23 Wn. App.

2d 479, 484, 516 P.3d 443 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re

Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884, 893, 93 P.3d 124 (2004)). A court’s decision will

be considered “unreasonable” if it is not within the range of acceptable choices, given the

facts and applicable legal standard. Id. A court’s decision is based on “untenable

grounds” if the factual findings are not supported by the record and “untenable reasons”

if it is based on the incorrect standard or the established facts do not meet the

requirements of the appropriate standard. Id.

The Meeks contend that the court abused its discretion because both biological

parents of L.A.M. and E.M. gave their consent for the Meeks to be the guardians of the

5 No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III) In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.

children. Although not in the form of a declaration as required by statute, they argue that

the consents were accepted by the court.

As noted above, RCW 11.130.215(2)(a) states that “[t]he court shall appoint a

person nominated as guardian by a parent of the minor in a probated will or other record

unless the court finds the appointment is contrary to the best interest of the minor.”

(emphasis added). By using the mandatory word “shall” the statute requires the court to

appoint the parent-nominated guardian, but by including the word “unless” the statute

imposes a condition under which the first action may not take place. L.C., 538 P.3d at

314. In other words, the court can only deviate from the guardian nominated by the

parents if it finds the appointment is contrary to the child’s best interest. Id.

Generally, when a statute has mandated factual findings, they must be

“‘sufficiently specific to permit meaningful review.’” Id. (quoting State v. Holland, 98

Wn.2d 507, 517, 656 P.2d 1056 (1983)). While the degree of particularity will depend on

the type of case, they should be “sufficient to indicate the factual base[s] for the ultimate

conclusions.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Groff v. Dep’t Lab. & Indus., 65 Wn.2d

35, 40, 395 P.2d 633 (1964)). However, if the written findings are not sufficient, they

may be supplemented by the oral decision or statements in the record. Id.

The Meeks argue that the court failed to provide written findings that appointing

the Meeks would not be in the children’s best interest. While it is true the court’s written

findings are vague and essentially recite that it is in the best interest of the children to

6 No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III) In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.

appoint Barnett as their guardian, the court made detailed oral findings. The Meeks do

not assign error to any of the court’s oral findings. Instead, they argue that the findings

focused on facts showing that the biological parents were unable to parent instead of

focusing on the good qualities of the Meeks. We disagree with this characterization of

the court’s findings. It is clear from the court’s oral decision that it was focused on the

children’s situation. The court provided detailed findings on L.A.M. and E.M.’s social,

scholastic, and family environment.

The sufficiency of findings under RCW 11.130.215(2)(a) was recently addressed

in In re Guardianship of L.C. In L.C., the mother’s cousins filed an emergency minor

guardianship petition for L.C. The mother and father objected, and during the pendency

of the petition nominated several other people as potential guardians. Following a trial,

the court granted the cousins’ petition for guardianship. The court’s only findings

pertaining to the guardians nominated by the parents was that they had not been vetted

and seemed to be late-coming suggestions. Id. at 314. There were no findings that

appointing the nominated guardians would not be in the child’s best interest and thus, the

court’s decision to grant the cousins’ petition was an abuse of discretion. Id. at 315.

The findings in this case are more comprehensive and explicit than the findings

entered in L.C. Specifically, the court made identical findings for both L.A.M. and E.M.

that “[a]lthough the biological parents consented to the paternal grandparents [Meeks]

being the guardians, uprooting [L.A.M. and E.M.] from all that [they have] ever known,

7 No. 39085-3-III (Consol. with 39086-3-III) In re Guardianship of L.A.M.; E.M.

including the extended family that [they have] grown up with, is not in [their] best

interest.” RP (May 26, 2022) at 158. This finding is sufficient to support the trial court’s

conclusion that Barrett’s petition should be granted and the Meeks’ petition should be

denied.

Finally, the Meeks argue the residential schedule must be revisited because it was

based on the erroneous guardianship decision of the court. Because we affirm the trial

court’s decision on guardianship, we conclude that the residential schedule does not need

to be revised.

Affirmed.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW

2.06.040.

_________________________________ Staab, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________________ Fearing, J.

_________________________________ Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.