In the Matter of the Marriage of: Jeffrey Shammah Knowles & Amy Louise Knowles

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: July 10, 2025
• Docket: 40216-9
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED JULY 10, 2025 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In the Marriage of ) ) No. 40216-9-III JEFFREY SHAMMAH KNOWLES, ) ) Respondent, ) ) and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) AMY LOUISE KNOWLES, ) ) Appellant. )

STAAB, A.C.J. — Following a dissolution trial between Jeffery and Amy

Knowles,1 Amy appealed the trial court’s child support order and denial of her motion for

a new trial. She did not appeal the court’s final parenting plan. Nevertheless, on appeal

she raises numerous issues related to the parenting plan. Due to deficiencies in the record

and briefing, we are unable to address most of her assignments of error. Ultimately, we

affirm the trial court’s order.

1 Because the parties have the same last name we refer to them by their first names for clarity and ease of reading. No disrespect is intended. No. 40216-9-III In re the Marriage of Jeffrey & Amy Knowles

BACKGROUND

This case revolves around family law litigation that began in 2021 and resulted in

a four-day trial that occurred in November 2023. The parties were married for 16 years

and have four children. The issues at trial concerned the parenting plan, child support

order, and the division and allocation of property and debts. Although the final parenting

plan is not part of the record, we glean from the trial court’s findings that it designated

Jeffery as the primary parent and limited Amy’s contact with the children. The court also

imputed income to Amy and ordered her to pay Jeffery child support.

Following trial, Amy filed a motion for new trial, raising several issues. The court

denied this motion by written order.

Amy filed a timely appeal, but did not order any transcripts from the trial or file a

report of proceedings.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Amy raises several challenges to the trial court’s orders following a

bench trial. Ultimately, we review these decisions for abuse of discretion. See In re

Marriage of Chandola, 180 Wn.2d 632, 642, 327 P.3d 644 (2014).

Following a bench trial, we review the trial court’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law. Unchallenged findings constitute verities on appeal. In re Estate of

Jones, 152 Wn.2d 1, 8, 93 P.3d 147 (2004). Challenged findings are verities if they are

supported by substantial evidence. In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wn.2d 114, 127,

2 No. 40216-9-III In re the Marriage of Jeffrey & Amy Knowles

392 P.3d 1041 (2017). “Substantial evidence” requires us to determine if the evidence is

“sufficient to persuade a rational, fair-minded person of the truth of the finding.” Jones,

152 Wn.2d at 8. When considering whether evidence is substantial, “[w]e do not review

the trial court’s credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence ‘even though we

may disagree with the trial court in either regard.’” Black, 188 Wn.2d at 127 (quoting In

re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 740, 513 P.2d 831 (1973)).

We review conclusions of law de novo and consider whether they are supported

by the trial court’s findings. Littlefair v. Schulze, 169 Wn. App. 659, 664, 278 P.3d 218

(2012).

As a preliminary matter, we note that several deficiencies prevent our review of

most of the issues raised by Amy. To begin with, Amy failed to appeal some of the

orders she challenges in her brief. Amy filed two notices of appeal. The first notice was

filed on January 24, 2024, and designated the order denying her motion for a new trial as

well as “accompanying Court Orders entered on January 2, 2024.” Attached to this

notice were the trial court’s minutes and the order denying the motion for a new trial.

The next day, Amy filed a second notice of appeal, designating and attaching the final

order on child support entered on January 2, 2024. She did not appeal nor designate the

court’s final parenting plan.

Under RAP 5.3(a)(3), a notice of appeal must “designate the decision or part of

decision which the party wants reviewed.” In addition, the order or decision being

3 No. 40216-9-III In re the Marriage of Jeffrey & Amy Knowles

appealed should be attached to the notice of appeal. RAP 5.3(a). Although Amy did not

appeal the trial court’s final parenting plan, she raises several challenges to this order on

appeal. Under RAP 5.3(f), we can disregard defects if the notice of appeal “reflects an

intent by a party to seek review.” Here, while it is clear that Amy is challenging the

court’s final parenting plan on appeal, she failed to attach this order to her notice of

appeal and failed to designate this order as part of the clerks papers. Consequently, even

if we wanted to review the issues related to the parenting plan, we are unable to do so

because of the deficient record on appeal.

In addition, the record on appeal does not contain any transcripts from the trial.

As the appellant, Amy “has the burden of perfecting the record so that [this] court has

before it all the evidence relevant to the issue[s]” on appeal. In re Marriage of Haugh,

58 Wn. App. 1, 6, 790 P.2d 1266 (1990). Under RAP 9.2(b) “[a] party should arrange for

the transcription of all those portions of the verbatim report of proceedings necessary to

present the issues raised on review.” The rule specifically provides that a party claiming

that a finding of fact was not supported by the evidence, “should include in the record all

evidence relevant to the disputed verdict or findings.” Id.

Here, the challenged orders were entered following a bench trial. The court’s

findings used to support the orders were based on evidence presented at trial. Without

transcripts from the trial, it is impossible to determine if the evidence presented at trial

supports the court’s findings. When an appellant fails to provide the court with a record

4 No. 40216-9-III In re the Marriage of Jeffrey & Amy Knowles

sufficient for review, we cannot reach the merits of their arguments. See Olmsted v.

Mulder, 72 Wn. App. 169, 183, 863 P.2d 1355 (1993) (noting that the court could not

reach the merits of the appellant’s argument because he failed to provide the court with a

sufficient trial record).

We set forth the issues raised in Amy’s appeals and address them to the extent

allowed by the record on appeal.

1. Determination of the Law

Amy alleges that the trial court erred by abdicating its responsibility to find facts

and determine the law to child protective services (CPS) and police. In particular, with

respect to allegations of child abuse and sexual misconduct, she argues that the trial court

deferred to the opinions of outside agencies and failed to consider evidence that she

presented.

The trial court found that “Mr. Knowles credibly testified that Amy Knowles had

engaged in significant misconduct that harmed the children,” and then listed several

specific examples. In one example, the trial court found that Amy Knowles had

physically abused one of the children by using tweezers to remove small sores from the

infant’s body and emotionally abused some of the other children by making them

participate in this event. The court noted that the incident was reviewed by CPS and

Children’s Hospital and both entities concluded that the incident constituted physical

abuse as a matter of law. Based on the examples set forth, the court concluded that good

5 No. 40216-9-III In re the Marriage of Jeffrey & Amy Knowles

cause existed to adopt the recommendations of the guardian ad litem and suspend

residential time for Amy as set forth in Jeffery’s proposed parenting plan. Amy contends

that the trial court did not independently find that Amy’s actions amounted to child abuse

and erred by accepting the legal determinations of outside agencies.

Contrary to Amy’s assertion, the trial court found that her misconduct harmed the

children and this harm supported a conclusion that Amy’s residential time should be

suspended. Under RCW 26.09.191(2)(a)(ii), a court can restrict a parent’s residential

time upon a finding that the parent has engaged in physical abuse. While the trial court’s

general findings and conclusions are part of the record, there are usually additional

findings and conclusions in the final parenting plan, especially when the court makes

findings that result in restrictions on a parent’s residential time.

Here, we do not know if additional findings and conclusions were entered and we

do not know the nature of any restrictions because the parenting plan is not part of the

record on appeal. Within the findings of fact in the record, the trial court found that

Amy’s misconduct harmed the children and then provided specific examples. To the

extent that Amy contends the trial court failed to consider her evidence or gave too much

weight to the testimony of other witnesses, this is a determination of credibility within the

trial court’s sole province. To the extent she contends that the court’s findings were not

supported by the evidence, the lack of transcripts precludes our review.

6 No. 40216-9-III In re the Marriage of Jeffrey & Amy Knowles

2. Motion for Rape Examination

Amy challenges the trial court’s decision denying her motion for a physical rape

examination of the parties’ child. Amy’s motion for a rape examination pertained to the

court’s parenting plan, residential placement of the children, and limitations on her time

with the children. The trial court found that “Ms. Knowles has a documented history of

making false and baseless reports of sexual misconduct of others.” Clerk’s Papers at 620.

The court went on to find that her complaints were not credible and her request to have

her four-year-old child submit to a rape examination would cause harm to the child.

On appeal, Amy contends that the trial court’s findings are based on the

incompetent testimony of witnesses who worked for CPS. She asserts that the CPS

workers lacked personal knowledge of the allegations and did not have the medical

expertise to provide expert opinions. We cannot consider these claims because the trial

transcript is not part of the record and we cannot verify the testimony, objections, or trial

court rulings.

3. Trial Court’s Finding on Amy Knowles’s Credibility

Amy contends that the court improperly discredited her testimony due to

procedural missteps as a pro se litigant. She argues that the trial court questioned the

credibility of her allegations because they were made shortly before trial. On appeal, she

contends that even if this is true, the trial court erred in not giving her grace as a pro se

litigant. Amy’s argument fails for several reasons.

7 No. 40216-9-III In re the Marriage of Jeffrey & Amy Knowles

First, Amy failed to designate a report of proceedings from the motion so we

cannot determine if the trial court abused its discretion. Second, even as a pro se litigant,

the rules of procedure still apply and she cannot use this as a reason to justify her failure

to raise the motion properly or timely. See State v. Hoff, 31 Wn. App. 809, 812, 644 P.2d

763 (1982). Third, although Amy requests leniency because she is representing herself

pro se, courts do not entitle special consideration based on this status. Id. (“In short, a

pro se [party] is simply not entitled to special consideration.”).

4. Evidence Considered by the Trial Court

Amy contends that the trial court erred by accepting uncorroborated and

prejudicial testimony regarding her fitness as a parent, leading to the improper suspension

of her parenting time. But again, Amy failed to appeal the parenting plan, failed to

designate the report of proceedings and without a proper record, this court is unable to

review the testimony she challenges. See Olmsted, 72 Wn. App. at 183. Even if Amy

had properly designated the record, this court does not reevaluate the record to reweigh

evidence or make credibility determinations. Ancier v. Dept. of Health, 140 Wn. App.

564, 575, 166 P.3d 829 (2007). She fails to assert that the court abused its discretion in

considering the evidence admitted at trial.

8 No. 40216-9-III In re the Marriage of Jeffrey & Amy Knowles

5. Counterclaims

Amy contends that the trial court violated “procedural fairness” by limiting her

ability to present her case. She contends that multiple subpoenas were unanswered even

into trial including the children’s personal counselors, a relevant CPS investigation

remained unopened, and a forensic audit of a phone with key evidence was still not

complete. Her request for a continuance of trial was denied even though the majority of

the key evidence concerning correct financials and the children’s mental health was still

not discovered.2

“‘[T]he decision to grant or deny a motion for a continuance rests within the

sound discretion of the trial court.’” State v. Flinn, 154 Wn.2d 193, 199, 110 P.3d 748

(2005) (quoting State v. Downing, 151 Wn.2d 265, 272, 87 P.3d 1169 (2004)) (alteration

in original). As such, we will not disturb the decision unless the appellant can make a

showing that the trial court abused its discretion. See id.

Here, we are unable to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by

denying Amy’s motion for a continuance because she failed to designate a proper record.

Without a record identifying the court’s reason for denying the continuance we are

unable to determine if it was an abuse of discretion.

2 Amy then quotes random parts in length of her motion and declaration for a new trial that was filed with the court along with random civil rules.

9 No. 40216-9-III In re the Marriage of Jeffrey & Amy Knowles

6. Sixth and Seventh Assignments of Error

Amy assigns error to (1) the trial court’s alleged failure to follow statutory

guidelines in determining her financial needs in relation to spousal maintenance and child

support, and (2) the trial court’s alleged misapplication of Washington State law

concerning the equitable division of community property.

An appellant is required to identify assignments of error, which contain a “concise

statement of each error a party contends was made by the trial court” along with

reference to material portions of the challenged finding in the brief or appendix. RAP

10.3(a)(4), 10.4(c). Additionally, the RAPs require an appellant’s brief to “[r]eference to

the record . . . for each factual statement” along with “a statement of the facts and

procedure relevant to the issues.” RAP 10.3(a)(5). Furthermore, the brief must contain

“argument in support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal

authority and references to relevant parts of the record.” RAP 10.3(a)(6).

Here, Amy does not provide an argument section in her brief in support of this

assignment of error with citation to legal authority or relevant parts of the record,

violating the above cited RAPs. Amy does briefly discuss financials in her reply brief,

but this is too late to warrant consideration. See Bergerson v. Zurbano, 6 Wn. App. 2d

912, 925-26, 432 P.3d 850 (2018). Consequently, we deny review of this issue.

10 No. 40216-9-III In re the Marriage of Jeffrey & Amy Knowles

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, A.C.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________________ Fearing, J.

_________________________________ Cooney, J.