In the Matter of the Parenting of: E.M.

Opinion

FILED

SEPTEMBER 10, 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 Parenting of: )

) No. 41282-2-III E.M. )

)

)

HENRY DOUGLAS ADKINS, JR., )

) UNPUBLISHED OPINION Respondent, )

v. )

)

LESLIE MCGLOTHEN-HAYES, )

)

Appellant. )

COONEY, J. — Leslie McGlothen-Hayes appeals the parenting plan entered by the trial court following an informal trial. On appeal, she contends (1) the trial court judge was biased, (2) a Family Court Investigator (FCI) report admitted at trial was “biased and incomplete” and the court failed to consider her “exculpatory” evidence (Am. Br. of Appellant at 11), (3) the court erred in awarding Henry Adkins sole custody of E.M., their child, and (4) the court failed to enter findings favorable to her. We decline review

Adkins v. Hayes

because Ms. McGlothen-Hayes’ briefing is inadequate and she failed to provide a verbatim report of proceedings from the informal trial.

BACKGROUND

In January 2022, Mr. Adkins petitioned to modify the parties’ permanent parenting plan governing custody of their child, E.M. The matter proceeded with a two-day informal bench trial in November 2024 and January 2025. 1 At trial, an FCI testified, and the court admitted her report into evidence. The court stated it “entered and considered all of the exhibits presented at trial.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 444. Exhibit 2.111 was an e-mail from Detective Michael Durbin of the Yakima Police Department to the trial judge, who was a deputy prosecuting attorney in the Yakima County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office at the time the e-mail was sent. In the e-mail, Detective Durbin asked the deputy prosecutor, “Would you take a look [at] this and let me know if you think there is an offense you would charge?” Ex. 2.111. The deputy prosecutor responded:

Detective Durbin-

I’ve had an opportunity to review the reports you’ve provided, and the state would be unable to prove any criminal violations beyond a reasonable doubt. There are no witnesses to the incidents, and the people who would have witnessed [the] incidents denied they occurred. The incidents occurred over a year ago, so there is no physical evidence. Although corroboration isn’t legally necessary, a jury will almost always want[] corroboration.

1 Ms. McGlothen-Hayes did not designate any verbatim reports of proceedings from this trial for our review.

3

Adkins v. Hayes

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions and/or concerns you may have.

Ex. 2.111. The exhibit does not identify the alleged perpetrator or describe the referenced “incidents.” See Ex. 2.111.

Following the informal trial, the court entered its “Final Order and Findings for a Parenting Plan, Residential Schedule, and/or Child Support.” CP at 442-47. The court granted Mr. Adkins sole decision-making authority and primary custody of E.M. The court granted Ms. McGlothen-Hayes only supervised visitation.

Ms. McGlothen-Hayes timely appeals.

ANALYSIS

Ms. McGlothen-Hayes challenges numerous rulings related to the entry of the final parenting plan. She requests, among other relief, that we (1) grant her sole custody of E.M., (2) “STRIKE the FCI Report,” (3) correct the record “to remove child abuse allegations from [Ms. McGlothen-Hayes]’s background,” (4) vacatur of sanctions, (5) grant retroactive child support, (6) grant $5,000 in appellate costs, and (7) terminate Mr. Adkin’s parental rights. Am. Br. of Appellant at 23-24.

Following an informal family law trial, we review the trial court’s findings of fact for 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

4

Adkins v. Hayes

(2012). A trial court’s parenting plan is ultimately reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23, 35, 283 P.3d 546 (2012).

Self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and must comply with all procedural and substantive rules. See In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993). RAP 10.3(a)(5) and (6) require a fair statement of facts supported by citations to the record, and legal arguments supported with authority and record citations, respectively. We do not consider conclusory arguments unsupported by citation to authority. Joy v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 170 Wn. App. 614, 629, 285 P.3d 187 (2012). Where a party cites no authority for an assertion, we may presume none exists. DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126, 372 P.2d 193 (1962). An inadequately briefed assignment of error is deemed waived. Milligan v. Thompson, 110 Wn. App. 628, 635, 42 P.3d 418 (2002).

Appellate review also requires a sufficient record. RAP 9.2(b). The appellant bears the burden of providing a record so that this court has all the evidence relevant to the issue before it. Rhinevault v. Rhinevault, 91 Wn. App. 688, 692, 959 P.2d 687 (1998). We are not required to search the record for support for a party’s arguments. Mills v. Park, 67 Wn.2d 717, 721, 409 P.2d 646 (1966). Thus, a deficient record precludes our review of alleged errors. Stiles v. Kearney, 168 Wn. App. 250, 259, 277 P.3d 9 (2012).

5

Adkins v. Hayes

Ms. McGlothen-Hayes has not complied with RAP 9.2(b) or RAP 10.3(a)(5) 2 and (6). Her brief largely consists of unsupported allegations, grievances, and conclusory assertions with little, if any, meaningful legal analysis tied to the record or relevant legal authority. In addition, she did not designate a verbatim report of proceedings from the informal bench trial, which prevents review of her claims.

We therefore decline review of Ms. McGlothen-Hayes’s appeal and affirm.

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.

Cooney, J.

WE CONCUR:

Staab, C.J. Hill, J.

2 Ms. McGlothen-Hayes primarily cites to exhibits admitted at the informal bench trial.