FILED JULY 29, 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 Matter of the Parentage of ) ) No. 40298-3-III GREGORY SCHER, ) (Consolidated with ) No. 40324-6-III) Appellant, ) ) and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) LYDIA TREISCHEL, ) ) Respondent. )
STAAB, J. — Gregory Scher appeals the Final Order and Findings on Petition to
Change a Parenting Plan or Custody Order, the final Parenting Plan, and the Order on
Motion to Restrict Abusive Litigation that resulted from the trial in this case. He
challenges multiple trial court rulings related to the entry of the parenting plan and the
imposition of monetary sanctions. As relief, Scher seeks reversal of the trial court’s
orders, reassignment to a different judge, dismissal of protective orders, and expanded
visitation rights.
Lydia Treischel responds that the appeal is frivolous and should be dismissed for
failure to comply with the RAPs, lack of legal authority or citation to the record, and No. 40298-3-III (Consolidated with 40324-6-III) In re the Parentage of Scher v. Treischel
failure to demonstrate reversible error. She also requests an award of reasonable attorney
fees as a sanction for Scher filing a frivolous appeal.
We agree with Treischel and conclude that Scher’s appeal is frivolous. Scher’s
briefing and the record are wholly inadequate to permit appellate review. Accordingly,
we affirm and award Treischel her reasonable attorney fees incurred in responding to this
appeal.
BACKGROUND
Gregory Scher and Lydia Treischel are the parents of H.S., their son, who was
born in 2016. The parties married in Hawaii in 2016 and divorced in 2019. As part of
the divorce, a Hawaii court entered a custody order and parenting plan for H.S. Treischel
relocated to Spokane with H.S., while Scher remained in Hawaii.
In June 2022, attorney Bevan Maxey, on Scher’s behalf, filed a petition in
Spokane County Superior Court to modify the Hawaii parenting plan.1 Scher sought a
major modification, requesting expanded residential time or a change in primary
residential placement. He argued that Treischel failed to follow the parenting plan more
than once in three years. In the alternative, he requested a minor schedule modification.
Treischel opposed the petition.2
1 A copy of this parenting plan is not included in the record. 2 In her declaration in opposition to the petition, Treischel states that she has a domestic violence protection order in place against Scher and that she also participates in Washington’s “Address Confidentiality Program” to protect herself from Scher.
2 No. 40298-3-III (Consolidated with 40324-6-III) In re the Parentage of Scher v. Treischel
Approximately three weeks later, a superior court commissioner entered an order
on adequate cause and a temporary parenting plan, although a copy of those orders are
not included in the record. Scher moved to revise the commissioner’s ruling. A hearing
was held on the motion, but no transcript is included in the record, and it is unclear what,
if any, orders were entered. The hearing minutes simply note that the court ruled “as
indicated on the record.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 26.
The record does not reflect any proceedings between November 2022 and May
2023.
In May 2023, Maxey withdrew as counsel, and Scher proceeded pro se. Trial was
initially set for December 4, 2023, but was continued at Scher’s request to allow time for
serving subpoenas. At a status hearing ten days later, the court advised Scher that his
subpoena requests were deficient. The court explained that Scher did not need to
subpoena Treischel but was required to serve notice of any other subpoenas, and to
provide mileage, witness fees, and lodging and meals. The court stated it would follow
up with a letter summarizing these instructions before adjourning the hearing.
Trial commenced on January 3, 2024. Scher appeared in person, and his two
witnesses testified via “zoom.” At the outset, the court addressed and orally denied
3 No. 40298-3-III (Consolidated with 40324-6-III) In re the Parentage of Scher v. Treischel
several motions Scher had filed, including motions for sanctions, summary judgment, and
referral for disciplinary action against Treischel’s counsel.3
During trial, the court admitted 99 exhibits4 and heard the testimony from various
witnesses. Following closing arguments, the court took the matter under advisement.
On February 21, 2024, the court entered a Final Order and Findings on Petition to
Change a Parenting Plan or Custody Order, a final Parenting Plan, and on March 19,
2024, entered an Order on Motion to Restrict Abusive Litigation. None of these final
orders were designated in the record.
Scher appeals.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Scher challenges numerous rulings by the trial court relating to the
entry of a final parenting plan and the imposition of monetary sanctions. He seeks
various remedies including reversal of the trial court’s orders, reassignment to a new
judge, dismissal of protective orders, and a finding of expanded visitation rights.
Treischel responds that Scher’s appeal is frivolous and should be dismissed for
noncompliance with the RAPs, lack of legal authority or citations to the record, and
failure to show reversible error.
3 Copies of these motions are not included in the record. 4 None of these exhibits are included in the record.
4 No. 40298-3-III (Consolidated with 40324-6-III) In re the Parentage of Scher v. Treischel
1. Standard of Review
Following a bench trial, we review the trial court’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Challenged findings are reviewed to determine if they are supported
by substantial evidence. In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wn.2d 114, 127, 392 P.3d 1041
(2017). 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). Ultimately, a trial court’s parenting plan is reviewed for an abuse of discretion,
which “occurs when a decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds
or untenable reasons.” In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23, 35, 283 P.3d 546
(2012).
2. Applicable Legal Standards and Procedural Requirements
Under Washington law, pro se litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys
and must comply with all procedural and substantive rules on appeal. See In re Marriage
of Olson, 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993). This includes the requirements
under RAP 10.3(a)(5) and (6), which mandate that parties must (1) provide a fair
statement of facts supported by citations to the record, and (2) support legal arguments
with authority and record citations.
This court does not consider conclusory arguments unsupported by citation to
authority. Joy v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 170 Wn. App. 614, 629, 285 P.3d 187
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED JULY 29, 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 Matter of the Parentage of ) ) No. 40298-3-III GREGORY SCHER, ) (Consolidated with ) No. 40324-6-III) Appellant, ) ) and ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) LYDIA TREISCHEL, ) ) Respondent. )
STAAB, J. — Gregory Scher appeals the Final Order and Findings on Petition to
Change a Parenting Plan or Custody Order, the final Parenting Plan, and the Order on
Motion to Restrict Abusive Litigation that resulted from the trial in this case. He
challenges multiple trial court rulings related to the entry of the parenting plan and the
imposition of monetary sanctions. As relief, Scher seeks reversal of the trial court’s
orders, reassignment to a different judge, dismissal of protective orders, and expanded
visitation rights.
Lydia Treischel responds that the appeal is frivolous and should be dismissed for
failure to comply with the RAPs, lack of legal authority or citation to the record, and No. 40298-3-III (Consolidated with 40324-6-III) In re the Parentage of Scher v. Treischel
failure to demonstrate reversible error. She also requests an award of reasonable attorney
fees as a sanction for Scher filing a frivolous appeal.
We agree with Treischel and conclude that Scher’s appeal is frivolous. Scher’s
briefing and the record are wholly inadequate to permit appellate review. Accordingly,
we affirm and award Treischel her reasonable attorney fees incurred in responding to this
appeal.
BACKGROUND
Gregory Scher and Lydia Treischel are the parents of H.S., their son, who was
born in 2016. The parties married in Hawaii in 2016 and divorced in 2019. As part of
the divorce, a Hawaii court entered a custody order and parenting plan for H.S. Treischel
relocated to Spokane with H.S., while Scher remained in Hawaii.
In June 2022, attorney Bevan Maxey, on Scher’s behalf, filed a petition in
Spokane County Superior Court to modify the Hawaii parenting plan.1 Scher sought a
major modification, requesting expanded residential time or a change in primary
residential placement. He argued that Treischel failed to follow the parenting plan more
than once in three years. In the alternative, he requested a minor schedule modification.
Treischel opposed the petition.2
1 A copy of this parenting plan is not included in the record. 2 In her declaration in opposition to the petition, Treischel states that she has a domestic violence protection order in place against Scher and that she also participates in Washington’s “Address Confidentiality Program” to protect herself from Scher.
2 No. 40298-3-III (Consolidated with 40324-6-III) In re the Parentage of Scher v. Treischel
Approximately three weeks later, a superior court commissioner entered an order
on adequate cause and a temporary parenting plan, although a copy of those orders are
not included in the record. Scher moved to revise the commissioner’s ruling. A hearing
was held on the motion, but no transcript is included in the record, and it is unclear what,
if any, orders were entered. The hearing minutes simply note that the court ruled “as
indicated on the record.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 26.
The record does not reflect any proceedings between November 2022 and May
2023.
In May 2023, Maxey withdrew as counsel, and Scher proceeded pro se. Trial was
initially set for December 4, 2023, but was continued at Scher’s request to allow time for
serving subpoenas. At a status hearing ten days later, the court advised Scher that his
subpoena requests were deficient. The court explained that Scher did not need to
subpoena Treischel but was required to serve notice of any other subpoenas, and to
provide mileage, witness fees, and lodging and meals. The court stated it would follow
up with a letter summarizing these instructions before adjourning the hearing.
Trial commenced on January 3, 2024. Scher appeared in person, and his two
witnesses testified via “zoom.” At the outset, the court addressed and orally denied
3 No. 40298-3-III (Consolidated with 40324-6-III) In re the Parentage of Scher v. Treischel
several motions Scher had filed, including motions for sanctions, summary judgment, and
referral for disciplinary action against Treischel’s counsel.3
During trial, the court admitted 99 exhibits4 and heard the testimony from various
witnesses. Following closing arguments, the court took the matter under advisement.
On February 21, 2024, the court entered a Final Order and Findings on Petition to
Change a Parenting Plan or Custody Order, a final Parenting Plan, and on March 19,
2024, entered an Order on Motion to Restrict Abusive Litigation. None of these final
orders were designated in the record.
Scher appeals.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Scher challenges numerous rulings by the trial court relating to the
entry of a final parenting plan and the imposition of monetary sanctions. He seeks
various remedies including reversal of the trial court’s orders, reassignment to a new
judge, dismissal of protective orders, and a finding of expanded visitation rights.
Treischel responds that Scher’s appeal is frivolous and should be dismissed for
noncompliance with the RAPs, lack of legal authority or citations to the record, and
failure to show reversible error.
3 Copies of these motions are not included in the record. 4 None of these exhibits are included in the record.
4 No. 40298-3-III (Consolidated with 40324-6-III) In re the Parentage of Scher v. Treischel
1. Standard of Review
Following a bench trial, we review the trial court’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Challenged findings are reviewed to determine if they are supported
by substantial evidence. In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wn.2d 114, 127, 392 P.3d 1041
(2017). 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). Ultimately, a trial court’s parenting plan is reviewed for an abuse of discretion,
which “occurs when a decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds
or untenable reasons.” In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23, 35, 283 P.3d 546
(2012).
2. Applicable Legal Standards and Procedural Requirements
Under Washington law, pro se litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys
and must comply with all procedural and substantive rules on appeal. See In re Marriage
of Olson, 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993). This includes the requirements
under RAP 10.3(a)(5) and (6), which mandate that parties must (1) provide a fair
statement of facts supported by citations to the record, and (2) support legal arguments
with authority and record citations.
This court does not consider conclusory arguments unsupported by citation to
authority. Joy v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 170 Wn. App. 614, 629, 285 P.3d 187 (2012).
Where no authority for an assertion is made, we may presume none exists. DeHeer v.
5 No. 40298-3-III (Consolidated with 40324-6-III) In re the Parentage of Scher v. Treischel
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126, 372 P.2d 193 (1962). Moreover, passing
“ʻtreatment of an issue or lack of reasoned argument is insufficient to merit [this court’s]
consideration.’” West v. Thurston County, 168 Wn. App. 162, 187, 275 P.3d 1200
(2012) (quoting Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn. App. 533, 538, 954 P.2d 290 (1998)).
“A party waives an assignment of error not adequately argued in its brief.” Milligan v.
Thompson, 110 Wn. App. 628, 635, 42 P.3d 418 (2002).
Additionally, appellate review requires a sufficient record under RAP 9.2(b). It is
the appellant’s burden to perfect the record so that the court has before it all of the
evidence relevant to the issue. Rhinevault v. Rhinevault, 91 Wn. App. 688, 692, 959 P.2d
687 (1998). This court is not “required to search the record for applicable portions
thereof in support of [a party]’s arguments.” Mills v. Park, 67 Wn.2d 717, 721, 409 P.2d
646 (1966). An insufficient record precludes review of alleged errors. Stiles v. Kearney,
168 Wn. App. 250, 259, 277 P.3d 9 (2012).
3. Scher’s Assignments of Error and Related Requests are Insufficient
Scher has failed to comply with these rules and his assignments of error are
therefore insufficient for our review. His brief consists largely of unsupported
allegations, grievances, and conclusory statements. Critically, Scher did not designate or
transmit the trial court’s final orders or any of the 99 trial exhibits.
Although Scher lists numerous alleged errors by the trial court, he does not
provide meaningful legal argument or record citations to support them, which
6 No. 40298-3-III (Consolidated with 40324-6-III) In re the Parentage of Scher v. Treischel
significantly hampers our ability to consider the arguments that Scher raises. See Joy,
170 Wn. App. at 629 (conclusory arguments unsupported by authority are insufficient).
Thus, we decline to review Scher’s appeal.
Treischel requests an award of reasonable attorney fees as a sanction against Scher
under RAP 18.1 and 18.9, asserting that his appeal is frivolous. Scher did not respond to
this argument in his reply brief.
RAP 18.1 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees on appeal if recoverable
under applicable law. Under RAP 18.9(a), “[t]he appellate court on its own initiative or
on motion of a party may order a party or counsel . . . who uses these rules for the purpose
of delay, files a frivolous appeal, or fails to comply with these rules to pay terms or
compensatory damages to any other party who has been harmed by the delay or the failure
to comply or to pay sanctions to the court.” “Appropriate sanctions may include . . . an
award of attorney fees and costs to the opposing party.” Yurtis v. Phipps, 143 Wn. App.
680, 696, 181 P.3d 849 (2008).
When determining whether an appeal is frivolous, the court will consider the
following factors:
“(1) A civil appellant has a right to appeal under RAP 2.2; (2) all doubts as to whether the appeal is frivolous should be resolved in favor of the appellant; (3) the record should be considered as a whole; (4) an appeal that is affirmed simply because the arguments are rejected is not frivolous; (5) an appeal is frivolous if there are no debatable issues upon which
7 No. 40298-3-III (Consolidated with 40324-6-III) In re the Parentage of Scher v. Treischel
reasonable minds might differ, and it is so totally devoid of merit that there was no reasonable possibility of reversal.”
Espinoza v. Am. Commerce Ins. Co., 184 Wn. App. 176, 202, 336 P.3d 115 (2014)
(quoting Griffin v. Draper, 32 Wn. App. 611, 616, 649 P.2d 123 (1982)).
Applying these standards, Scher’s appeal is frivolous. His briefing contains no
legal authority, fails to meaningfully cite to the record, and presents no debatable issues
upon which reasonable minds could differ. The appeal is so wholly lacking in merit that
there is no reasonable possibility of reversal. Accordingly, subject to Treischel’s
compliance with RAP 18.1(d), we grant her request for reasonable appellate attorney fees
as a sanction under RAP 18.9.
We affirm and impose sanctions against Scher in the form of an award of
Treischel’s reasonable appellate attorney fees.
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:
_________________________________ _________________________________ Lawrence-Berrey, C.J. Cooney, J.