In the Matter of the Marriage of: Jeannette E. Sirianni & Warren S. Sirianni

Court of Appeals of Washington

In the Matter of the Marriage of: Jeannette E. Sirianni & Warren S. Sirianni

Court of Appeals of Washington·Decided August 25, 2026·No. 40465-0·Unpublished

Opinion

FILED

AUGUST 25, 2026

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 Marriage of: ) No. 40465-0-III )

JEANETTE E. SIRIANNI, )

)

Respondent, )

) UNPUBLISHED OPINION and )

)

WARREN S. SIRIANNI, )

)

Appellant. )

LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. — Warren Sirianni appeals a final parenting plan and an order granting Jeanette Sirianni’s request to relocate. He argues the trial court erred by entering both orders and by not entering the orders he requested. His arguments mostly require this court to act as an appellate trier of fact. We decline to do so and affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This is the second appeal between the parties. In the first, we affirmed the trial court’s order of a shared 50/50 residential plan. In re Marriage of Sirianni, No. 37230-8- III (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2021) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/ pdf/372308_unp.pdf (Sirianni I).

Marriage of Sirianni

Apparently at some point, both parties filed motions to modify the parenting plan, and Jeanette1 also filed a motion to relocate.2 Throughout this proceeding, Jeanette repeatedly requested domestic violence protection orders (DVPO) against Warren and those requests were consistently denied.

The modification trial occurred over a span of three days. The guardian ad litem (GAL) testified first. Her initial report recommended that the parenting plan be changed to give Warren primary residential placement. But later, family dynamics changed and the GAL had concerns about Warren’s parenting, including involving both children in the parenting conflict. The GAL’s final recommendation was for the court to retain the 50/50 shared residential plan.

Similar to the first trial, both parties presented the trial court with starkly different evidence, and the trial court was required to determine which of the two was lying or lying the most. See Sirianni I, slip op. at 6. The trial court took the matter under advisement, and, one month later, announced its decision. In a lengthy oral ruling, the court (1) approved the mother’s request for relocation (within 15 minutes of the

1 We use the parties’ first names to avoid the overuse of “Mr.” and “Ms.” No disrespect is intended.

2 To describe the clerk’s papers as “incomplete” is an understatement.

Marriage of Sirianni

children’s prior school district), (2) found that both parties had engaged in the abusive use of conflict to the substantial detriment of their children, (3) described the situation between the parties as “a longstanding high-conflict relationship,”3 (4) maintained the 50/50 shared residential schedule (finding it was in the best interest of the parties’ two children), and (5) ordered the parties to undergo counseling.

Warren appeals to this court.

ANALYSIS

1. Mootness As a preliminary matter, we address Jeanette’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. Jeanette’s motion to modify the parenting plan is currently before the trial court. Jeanette argues the appeal is moot because the trial court’s decision will govern the parties’ relationship, not our decision affirming or reversing the current parenting plan. We disagree that this appeal is moot.

An issue is moot if this court can no longer provide effective relief. City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wn.2d 251, 258-59, 138 P.3d 943 (2006). Were we to reverse the parenting plan and conclude the trial court erred by not granting Warren primary residential placement, the trial court would then have to find a basis to modify primary

3 2 Rep. of Proc. (Dec. 6, 2023) at 629.

Marriage of Sirianni

placement with Warren instead of the current 50/50 plan. We conclude that the issues on appeal are not moot.

2. Request to consider additional evidence In his reply brief, Warren asks that we consider additional material that shows Jeanette continues to make false claims that he emotionally abuses the children. We deny his request. The procedure for considering new evidence on appeal is governed by RAP 9.11, which lists factors for consideration. Warren does not address this procedure or the relevant factors in his request.

3. Warren’s challenges to the orders In a 71-page brief with 22 assignments of error, Warren asks that we reverse the trial court’s orders and direct it to enter his requested orders. We decline his requests.

Trial courts have broad discretion when deciding what is in the best interest of children, and we will not reverse those decisions absent an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of McDole, 122 Wn.2d 604, 610, 859 P.2d 1239 (1993). We uphold a trial court’s findings if they are supported by substantial evidence, meaning if the evidence is sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person. Merriman v. Cokeley, 168 Wn.2d 627, 631, 230 P.3d 162 (2010). When it comes to weighing evidence and determining witness credibility, particularly in proceedings affecting the parent-child relationship, we

Marriage of Sirianni

defer to the trial judge. In re Welfare of A.W., 182 Wn.2d 689, 711, 344 P.3d 1186 (2015).

In the facts section of his opening brief, Warren includes a history of Jeanette’s failed DVPO requests. He does not discuss any of the evidence at trial. In the argument section, he discusses only the trial evidence favorable to him (at times without citing the record) and dismisses Jeanette’s conflicting evidence as untruthful. In large part, every purported error he seeks us to correct would require us to find his evidence credible and Jeannette’s evidence not credible.4 As noted above, this is not what appellate courts do, especially here, where the trial judge was asked to weigh the evidence and decide witness credibility for determining the best interest of the children.

4. Insufficiently briefed assignments of error As noted earlier, Warren lists 22 assignments of error. The argument section of his brief outlines 4 general arguments—(1) the trial court failed to recognize the serious child abuse perpetrated by Jeanette, (2) the trial court should have approved his proposed parenting plan, (3) the trial court should have denied the children’s relocation with Jeanette, and (4) this court should order attorney fees due to Jeanette’s false claims. We

4 Warren does raise one legal issue: he argues the findings supporting the trial court’s parenting plan are legally insufficient. We disagree. The trial court entered detailed findings on all required factors.

Marriage of Sirianni

note that several assignments of error do not relate to these general arguments.

Assignments of error unsupported by argument in a party’s opening brief are deemed waived by a reviewing court. Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 851, 861, 281 P.3d 289 (2012). Similarly, if the argument supporting an assignment of error is inadequate or not cogent, we may decline to review the assignment. Satomi Owners Ass’n v. Satomi, LLC, 167 Wn.2d 781, 807-08, 225 P.3d 213 (2009). We will not attempt to identify each assignment we deem waived. If Warren requests reconsideration, he has the onus to identify where in his opening brief he adequately and cogently argued the assignment of error.

5. Attorney fees Warren requests an award of attorney fees due to Jeanette’s false claims about him. We are uncertain whether his request is for attorney fees at trial, on appeal, or both. We consider them limited to a request on appeal. We deny his request. His argument assumes that we will act as an appellate trier of fact.

Jeanette requests an award of attorney fees on appeal (1) for the extra fees incurred responding to Warren’s brief, which does not comply with procedural rules, (2) for responding to a frivolous appeal, and (3) due to her financial need. We grant her some relief.

Marriage of Sirianni

First, RAP 10.3(a)(5) requires a party to provide a “fair statement of the facts”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILED

AUGUST 25, 2026

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 Marriage of: ) No. 40465-0-III )

JEANETTE E. SIRIANNI, )

)

Respondent, )

) UNPUBLISHED OPINION and )

)

WARREN S. SIRIANNI, )

)

Appellant. )

LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. — Warren Sirianni appeals a final parenting plan and an order granting Jeanette Sirianni’s request to relocate. He argues the trial court erred by entering both orders and by not entering the orders he requested. His arguments mostly require this court to act as an appellate trier of fact. We decline to do so and affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This is the second appeal between the parties. In the first, we affirmed the trial court’s order of a shared 50/50 residential plan. In re Marriage of Sirianni, No. 37230-8- III (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2021) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/ pdf/372308_unp.pdf (Sirianni I).

Marriage of Sirianni

Apparently at some point, both parties filed motions to modify the parenting plan, and Jeanette1 also filed a motion to relocate.2 Throughout this proceeding, Jeanette repeatedly requested domestic violence protection orders (DVPO) against Warren and those requests were consistently denied.

The modification trial occurred over a span of three days. The guardian ad litem (GAL) testified first. Her initial report recommended that the parenting plan be changed to give Warren primary residential placement. But later, family dynamics changed and the GAL had concerns about Warren’s parenting, including involving both children in the parenting conflict. The GAL’s final recommendation was for the court to retain the 50/50 shared residential plan.

Similar to the first trial, both parties presented the trial court with starkly different evidence, and the trial court was required to determine which of the two was lying or lying the most. See Sirianni I, slip op. at 6. The trial court took the matter under advisement, and, one month later, announced its decision. In a lengthy oral ruling, the court (1) approved the mother’s request for relocation (within 15 minutes of the

1 We use the parties’ first names to avoid the overuse of “Mr.” and “Ms.” No disrespect is intended.

2 To describe the clerk’s papers as “incomplete” is an understatement.

Marriage of Sirianni

children’s prior school district), (2) found that both parties had engaged in the abusive use of conflict to the substantial detriment of their children, (3) described the situation between the parties as “a longstanding high-conflict relationship,”3 (4) maintained the 50/50 shared residential schedule (finding it was in the best interest of the parties’ two children), and (5) ordered the parties to undergo counseling.

Warren appeals to this court.

ANALYSIS

1. Mootness As a preliminary matter, we address Jeanette’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. Jeanette’s motion to modify the parenting plan is currently before the trial court. Jeanette argues the appeal is moot because the trial court’s decision will govern the parties’ relationship, not our decision affirming or reversing the current parenting plan. We disagree that this appeal is moot.

An issue is moot if this court can no longer provide effective relief. City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wn.2d 251, 258-59, 138 P.3d 943 (2006). Were we to reverse the parenting plan and conclude the trial court erred by not granting Warren primary residential placement, the trial court would then have to find a basis to modify primary

3 2 Rep. of Proc. (Dec. 6, 2023) at 629.

Marriage of Sirianni

placement with Warren instead of the current 50/50 plan. We conclude that the issues on appeal are not moot.

2. Request to consider additional evidence In his reply brief, Warren asks that we consider additional material that shows Jeanette continues to make false claims that he emotionally abuses the children. We deny his request. The procedure for considering new evidence on appeal is governed by RAP 9.11, which lists factors for consideration. Warren does not address this procedure or the relevant factors in his request.

3. Warren’s challenges to the orders In a 71-page brief with 22 assignments of error, Warren asks that we reverse the trial court’s orders and direct it to enter his requested orders. We decline his requests.

Trial courts have broad discretion when deciding what is in the best interest of children, and we will not reverse those decisions absent an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of McDole, 122 Wn.2d 604, 610, 859 P.2d 1239 (1993). We uphold a trial court’s findings if they are supported by substantial evidence, meaning if the evidence is sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person. Merriman v. Cokeley, 168 Wn.2d 627, 631, 230 P.3d 162 (2010). When it comes to weighing evidence and determining witness credibility, particularly in proceedings affecting the parent-child relationship, we

Marriage of Sirianni

defer to the trial judge. In re Welfare of A.W., 182 Wn.2d 689, 711, 344 P.3d 1186 (2015).

In the facts section of his opening brief, Warren includes a history of Jeanette’s failed DVPO requests. He does not discuss any of the evidence at trial. In the argument section, he discusses only the trial evidence favorable to him (at times without citing the record) and dismisses Jeanette’s conflicting evidence as untruthful. In large part, every purported error he seeks us to correct would require us to find his evidence credible and Jeannette’s evidence not credible.4 As noted above, this is not what appellate courts do, especially here, where the trial judge was asked to weigh the evidence and decide witness credibility for determining the best interest of the children.

4. Insufficiently briefed assignments of error As noted earlier, Warren lists 22 assignments of error. The argument section of his brief outlines 4 general arguments—(1) the trial court failed to recognize the serious child abuse perpetrated by Jeanette, (2) the trial court should have approved his proposed parenting plan, (3) the trial court should have denied the children’s relocation with Jeanette, and (4) this court should order attorney fees due to Jeanette’s false claims. We

4 Warren does raise one legal issue: he argues the findings supporting the trial court’s parenting plan are legally insufficient. We disagree. The trial court entered detailed findings on all required factors.

Marriage of Sirianni

note that several assignments of error do not relate to these general arguments.

Assignments of error unsupported by argument in a party’s opening brief are deemed waived by a reviewing court. Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 851, 861, 281 P.3d 289 (2012). Similarly, if the argument supporting an assignment of error is inadequate or not cogent, we may decline to review the assignment. Satomi Owners Ass’n v. Satomi, LLC, 167 Wn.2d 781, 807-08, 225 P.3d 213 (2009). We will not attempt to identify each assignment we deem waived. If Warren requests reconsideration, he has the onus to identify where in his opening brief he adequately and cogently argued the assignment of error.

5. Attorney fees Warren requests an award of attorney fees due to Jeanette’s false claims about him. We are uncertain whether his request is for attorney fees at trial, on appeal, or both. We consider them limited to a request on appeal. We deny his request. His argument assumes that we will act as an appellate trier of fact.

Jeanette requests an award of attorney fees on appeal (1) for the extra fees incurred responding to Warren’s brief, which does not comply with procedural rules, (2) for responding to a frivolous appeal, and (3) due to her financial need. We grant her some relief.

Marriage of Sirianni

First, RAP 10.3(a)(5) requires a party to provide a “fair statement of the facts”

relevant to the issues presented, including references to the record. As noted above, Warren’s opening brief provided a one-sided view of the facts and often lacked citations to the record. We grant Jeanette an award of appellate fees to the extent these problems increased her fees on appeal. Our commissioner will decide this issue, and Jeanette is directed to comply with RAP 18.1(d).

Second, RAP 18.9 permits this court to assess attorney fee sanctions for a frivolous appeal. We resolve doubts of frivolousness against the party requesting sanctions. In re Marriage of Lee, 176 Wn. App. 678, 692, 310 P.3d 845 (2013). An appeal is frivolous if it is wholly without merit. Id. Warren’s brief provides reasons for not believing Jeanette. Were it not for the heightened discretion we give trial courts in these types of cases, his arguments might present a debatable issue. But even considering this heightened discretion, we do not deem his arguments wholly without merit.

Third, RAP 18.1(c) authorizes this court to grant attorney fees on appeal to a party if applicable law, such as RCW 26.09.140, mandates consideration of financial need. But to be entitled to fees under this rule, Jeanette would have had to file a financial declaration no later than 10 days prior to the date the case was set for consideration. Here, Jeanette filed a pleading purporting to be a financial declaration 3 days after this

Marriage of Sirianni

case was set for consideration, and the pleading was not a financial declaration; rather, it attached a judgment. We decline Jeanette’s request for attorney fees under this rule because she failed to comply with its procedures.

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.

Lawrence-Berrey, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ _________________________________ Staab, C.J. Hill, J.

In the Matter of the Marriage of: Jeannette E. Sirianni & Warren S. Sirianni, (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

In the Matter of the Marriage of: Jeannette E. Sirianni & Warren S. Sirianni (In the Matter of the Marriage of: Jeannette E. Sirianni & Warren S. Sirianni) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related