In the Matter of the Parenting & Support of: B.J.N.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 39971-1
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED FEBRUARY 27, 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In the Matter of the Parenting and Support ) No. 39971-1-III of ) ) B.J.N.† ) ) ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION HEIDI SUMMERS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) RYAN ALAN NELSON, ) ) Respondent. )

LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — Heidi Summers petitioned the trial court for primary

residential placement of the daughter she shares with Ryan Nelson. After a trial where

Summers, acting pro se, repeatedly appeared in court intoxicated, the court awarded

primary residential placement to Nelson and imposed parenting limitations on Summers.

Summers appeals, challenging (1) the factual basis for the trial court’s findings,

(2) the court’s application of applicable statutes, and (3) the court’s failure to grant

continuances or a mistrial. Because the court’s legal conclusions flowed correctly from

† To protect the privacy interests of the minor child, we use her initials throughout this opinion. Gen. Order for Court of Appeals, In re Changes to Case Title (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2018) (effective September 1, 2018), http://www.courts.wa.gov/ appellate_trial_courts. No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support of B.J.N.

findings rooted in substantial evidence, and because the court acted within its discretion

to deny Summers continuances or a mistrial, we affirm.

FACTS

In 2019, Heidi Summers petitioned the trial court for primary residential

placement of B.J.N., the one-year-old daughter she shares with Ryan Nelson. Three

years later, the court entered a temporary family law order granting Nelson joint

residential care of the child. In 2023, the court held a trial to resolve Summers’ petition.

Trial: courtroom phase

At the start of trial, the court asked Summers, pro se, whether she wished to argue

her motion for a continuance so as to obtain new counsel. Summers said she did not

expect to argue that motion, and she had been unable to obtain new counsel after her

previous counsel withdrew.

In the first three days of trial, Summers elicited testimony from several witnesses,

including (1) her father, John Dalton, (2) her brother, Derek Dalton, (3) her fiancé,

Matthew Alward, and (4) herself. In turn, all of these witnesses testified that Summers

did not abuse alcohol. This testimony conflicted with the following accounts Nelson and

his witnesses later offered:

• On one occasion, Summers drank to excess while driving with B.J.N. and

her other daughter in the car. Summers passed out at the wheel in a fast-

food parking lot, forcing her father to retrieve her and her children.

2 No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support of B.J.N.

• On another occasion, Summers called police to her house to report that a

boyfriend, Christopher Hollmeyer, had choked her and thrown her against a

chair.1 When police arrived, however, they found no markings on

Summers’ neck and observed that the chair in question contained an

undisturbed pile of folded laundry. One of the responding officers testified

that Summers smelled powerfully of alcohol. Both B.J.N. and Summers’

other daughter were present in the house during this incident.

• On about a dozen occasions, Summers smelled of alcohol when she

delivered B.J.N. to exchanges.

• On one occasion, Summers was intoxicated to the point of staggering when

she received B.J.N. for visitation.

• On another occasion, an altercation ensued when Summers’ father accused

her of breastfeeding while drunk. During that altercation, Summers’ father

threw her down two flights of stairs, dragged her across a floor, and threw

her in a backyard pond. Summers suffered two black eyes. Both of

Summers’ children were present for the incident.

• On another occasion, Summers drank 12 ounces of vodka within a minute

or two.

1 Some of the details of this incident derive from body camera footage played in open court.

3 No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support of B.J.N.

• On another occasion, Summers used alcohol as part of a suicide attempt. A

blood analysis showed that her blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.410,

more than five times the legal limit to drive.

The trial court, itself, observed that Summers showed signs of intoxication. By the

third day of trial, these signs became so pronounced that the court asked Summers if she

would submit to a breathalyzer test. Summers denied having any alcohol during trial and

refused the breathalyzer because “they’ve been doing this to me forever” and she was

“just so sick of it.” Rep. of Proc. (RP) (June 23, 2023) at 422. However, when the trial

court was unwilling to continue the proceedings unless Summers demonstrated her

sobriety, Summers submitted to the test. The test showed a BAC of 0.247—over three

times the legal limit to drive.

The court suspended proceedings and resumed the following week. At that time,

Summers submitted to and passed a second breathalyzer test. On that day, the court

asked Summers if, given the events of the preceding week, she still denied she had a

problem with alcohol. Summers replied she “would not consider it a problem.” RP

(June 26, 2023) at 457. She explained, if she were an alcoholic, she would not suffer

alcohol-related “incidences [sic]” because she would better understand how much alcohol

her body could tolerate. RP (June 26, 2023) at 457. Nevertheless, Summers agreed to

seek treatment if the trial court “[thought] it would be beneficial for the situation.” RP

(June 26, 2023) at6 457. Summers did not say that she believed treatment was

appropriate.

4 No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support of B.J.N.

Although the trial continued, Summers before the day concluded began exhibiting

symptoms of withdrawal and ultimately experienced a seizure. The court again

suspended proceedings and, in deference to Summers, permitted a 17-day recess for her

to receive treatment.

Within two days of resuming trial, the court again noted that Summers was

slurring her speech and otherwise exhibiting “some of the behaviors that we had when

this trial first started.” RP (July 21, 2023) at 1025. However, Summers was by that time

appearing remotely and could not submit to a breathalyzer test. Because only rebuttal

witnesses and closing arguments remained, the parties stipulated to concluding the trial in

writing. The court directed the parties to submit rebuttal testimony by declarations and

closing arguments by written statements.

Before this, the court had heard testimony and considered photographs

establishing that B.J.N., when Summers delivered her to exchanges, frequently exhibited

severe bruising all over her body. Summers downplayed this bruising by suggesting

(1) the photographs were misleading, and (2) the bruises were attributable to B.J.N.’s

active lifestyle. Summers also delivered B.J.N. to exchanges in a state of disheveled

hygiene.

The court also had heard testimony from Nelson and his mother establishing that

Nelson himself had once had a severe alcohol dependency, before achieving a decade of

sobriety. Although Nelson had relapsed in 2018, he had received inpatient treatment and

had been sober for the ensuing five years. Nelson’s mother also testified that Nelson had

5 No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support of B.J.N.

completed a 40-hour parenting course. Nelson’s roommate testified that Nelson had a

loving, healthy relationship with B.J.N.

Finally, the court had considered evidence establishing that Summers, on separate

occasions, had accused Nelson and also his roommate of unsubstantiated sexual

misconduct. In one instance, a Child Protective Services investigator had concluded that

an adult had likely coached Summers’ older daughter into making accusations against

Nelson. While the investigator did not specifically identify Summers as the coaching

adult, she concluded that Summers seemed to be using the allegations of misconduct to

gain the “‘upper hand’” against Nelson in court. Resp’t Ex. 11 at 449. Summers had

also accused Nelson of being a drug dealer, causing law enforcement, in 2018, to raid his

home and freeze his assets. The investigation resulted in only a marijuana possession

charge against Nelson. The investigation resulted in a marijuana possession charge

against Summers as well.

Trial: written phase, findings and conclusions, parenting plan

Sixteen days after the court ordered rebuttal evidence to be submitted by written

declarations and closing to be in writing, Summers filed her closing argument. That day,

she also filed a motion for mistrial and a motion to continue. Twelve days later,

Summers filed an additional motion to continue and a motion to stay proceedings.

Two days later—and without addressing Summers’ motions—the trial court

entered (1) findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (2) a parenting plan. As relevant

to this appeal, the court found the following:

6 No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support of B.J.N.

• Summers’ perjury with respect to her drinking problem had rendered her

testimony not credible.

• Summers’ witnesses had enabled her drinking and, by virtue of denying

that drinking, also were not credible.

• Summers’ alcoholism constituted “a severe . . . addiction for which she

should have, a long time ago, sought treatment.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at

217.

• Summers failed to care for B.J.N.’s hygiene. Summers also had subjected

B.J.N. to physical abuse, and would likely—in the event she retained

custody—subject the child to “future grievous bodily injury.” CP at 224.

• Notwithstanding Nelson’s history of substance abuse and relapse, he, along

with his mother and roommate, “provide[d] a loving and nurturing

environment” for B.J.N. CP at 222.

Among other conclusions of law, the court determined that Summers’ alcohol

impairment, neglect, and abusive use of conflict together warranted RCW 26.09.191

limitations. By contrast, the court determined that Nelson had taken action to

rehabilitate himself and demonstrated a stronger and more stable relationship with

the parties’ daughter. Although the court found Summers’ parenting limitations

dispositive of B.J.N.’s placement, it nevertheless analyzed B.J.N.’s placement under the

RCW 26.09.187(3) factors.

7 No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support of B.J.N.

The final parenting plan imposed limitations against Summers and awarded

Nelson sole residential placement of B.J.N. Under the plan, Summers’ limitations could

sunset if she successfully remedied her parenting deficiencies.

Summers appealed the trial court’s orders. One month after appealing, she again

moved to stay the trial court’s proceedings. The record does not indicate how—or

whether—the trial court responded to this motion.

ANALYSIS

A. RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT AND LIMITING FACTORS

Summers argues the trial court improperly entered orders without substantial

evidence. Although we agree with Nelson that Summers’ argument fails where she does

not adequately identify the specific findings she wishes to challenge, we nevertheless

note that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings.

Standard of review

This court reviews a trial court’s parenting plan provisions for abuse of discretion.

In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 46, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997). A trial court

operates within its discretion where its findings derive from the factual record, its

conclusions apply sound law, and its decisions are not manifestly unreasonable. In re

Marriage of Bowen, 168 Wn. App. 581, 586-87, 279 P.3d 885 (2012).

Where a trial court in a family law matter enters findings of fact, those findings

must derive from substantial evidence. In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wn.2d 337, 352,

77 P.3d 1174 (2003). Substantial evidence is that quantum of evidence necessary to

8 No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support of B.J.N.

persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the premise. In re Dependency of J.D.P.,

17 Wn. App. 2d 744, 755, 487 P.3d 960 (2021).

Findings supporting parenting plan

Here, the trial court’s findings fall broadly into three categories: findings

discrediting Summers and her witnesses, findings warranting parenting limitations

against Summers, and findings establishing Nelson’s fitness as a parent. Substantial

evidence supported the findings in each category.

i. Discrediting Summers and her witnesses

All of Summers’ witnesses testified that she did not abuse alcohol.2 Then, on the

third day of trial, the breathalyzer test Summers underwent revealed a BAC of over three

times the legal limit to drive. This test corroborated the trial court’s observation that

Summers, throughout trial, had exhibited signs of intoxication. When trial resumed,

Summers was sober but within hours suffered a withdrawal-related seizure. When trial

resumed a third time, the court again noticed signs of impairment.

Clearly, when an individual (1) drinks heavily before appearing pro se in court,

(2) suffers withdrawal-related seizures, and (3) continues, later in the proceedings, to

exhibit signs of impairment, that individual has a severe drinking problem. Those closest

to Summers—her father, brother, and fiancé—would certainly have known about this

2 The only witness Summers called who did not deny her alcohol dependency was Nelson himself, who testified both during Summers’ case in chief and his own.

9 No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support of B.J.N.

problem. That both they and Summers had denied these problems discredited all four of

them as witnesses.

ii. Warranting parenting limitations

Trial courts may impose parenting limitations under RCW 26.09.191(3) if the

parent, among other deficiencies, (1) has neglected their child, (2) suffers from a

“long-term impairment” resulting from alcohol abuse, or (3) has engaged in the abusive

use of conflict. A party engages in the abusive use of conflict where, generally, they

leverage bad-faith litigation against an intimate partner to prevail in a domestic dispute.

RCW 26.51.020. Where a parent has physically abused their child, the trial court must

impose parenting limitations. RCW 26.09.191(2)(a)(ii).

Here, the trial court’s findings related to all four of the above factors—alcohol

abuse, neglect, abusive use of conflict, and physical abuse—derived from substantial

evidence. However, because any one of those factors on its own justifies parenting

limitations (and in the case of physical abuse, requires parenting limitations), we focus

only on the two factors where the evidence is strongest.

First, there can be no question that Summers suffers from a severe alcohol

dependency that inhibits her ability to parent. In addition to her inebriation at trial,

testimony established that Summers regularly drank while caring for her children and

engaged—as a result of that drinking—in risky, violent behavior. Specifically, she

(1) passed out at the wheel with her children in the car, (2) regularly smelled of alcohol

when delivering B.J.N. to exchanges, (3) was once staggering drunk when receiving

10 No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support of B.J.N.

B.J.N. at an exchange, (4) drank to potentially fatal levels while attempting suicide, and

(5) called law enforcement, while drinking with her children present, to make an

indisputably false domestic violence report against Nelson.

Second, Nelson offered testimony and robust photographic evidence proving that

Summers physically abused B.J.N. while the girl was in her care. Specifically, the

photographs Nelson offered showed a pattern of Summers delivering B.J.N. to exchanges

with bruises all over her body. In some cases, those bruises indicated cranial injuries.

Summers offered no explanation for the injuries except to suggest that the photographs

were misleading or else the injuries were attributable to B.J.N.’s active lifestyle.

Again, credible evidence also supported the conclusion that Summers neglected

B.J.N. by failing to care for her hygiene and engaged in the abusive use of conflict where

she coached her older daughter into accusing Nelson of molesting her. However, these

findings are superfluous given the abundant evidence supporting the court’s findings

related to alcohol dependency and physical abuse.

iii. Establishing Nelson’s fitness as a parent

While Nelson admitted his history of alcoholism, he also testified without credible

contradiction that in the last 15 years he had relapsed only once, for a three-month period.

Testimony from Nelson’s mother corroborated this. Testimony also established, without

credible contradiction, that Nelson had completed a 40-hour parenting course, and that

he—together with his mother and roommate—had created a loving, nurturing

environment for B.J.N.

11 No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support of B.J.N.

Although Summers does not adequately identify the specific findings she

challenges, we nevertheless conclude that substantial evidence supports its findings to

justify (1) parenting limitations against Summers, and (2) Nelson’s fitness as a parent.

B. CONTINUANCES, MISTRIAL, PROCEDURAL ERRORS, BIAS

Summers argues that various trial court errors warrant reversal. The claimed

errors are denied continuances, a denied mistrial, procedural irregularities, and bias. We

disagree such errors occurred. But even were we to agree that one or all did, the

cumulative effect still would be harmless.

Washington courts shall “disregard any error or defect in pleadings or proceedings

which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party, and no judgment shall be

reversed or affected by reason of such error or defect.” RCW 4.36.240.

Here, the trial court imposed parenting limitations on Summers because she

manifestly has a severe alcohol dependency that inhibits her ability to parent and because

abundant evidence showed that Summers had physically abused B.J.N. Because

Summers’ witnesses endeavored to conceal her alcohol dependency, their testimony

lacked credibility. As a result, no credible evidence contradicted the testimony of

Nelson’s witnesses, who testified that Nelson, through treatment, had overcome his

alcohol dependency and become a fit parent.

We do wish to note, after a careful review of the record, the trial judge evidenced

no bias against Summers. On the contrary, the judge extended Summers great patience

and courtesy. She tolerated Summers’ consistent lateness to trial, assisted Summers in

12 No. 39971-1-III In re Parenting & Support ofB.JN

navigating the demands of prose representation, and-most notably-twice suspended

the proceedings, once because of Summers' intoxication, and the other due to Summers'

withdrawal-related seizure. The trial judge accommodated Summers' alcohol

dependency by permitting written submissions, rather than risk the safety of Summers

and others by requiring Summers to drive to court. We commend the trial judge for her

handling of this difficult situation.

C. ATTORNEY FEES

Nelson requests an award of attorney fees, describing Summers' appeal as

frivolous and without basis. He fails to cite a statute or rule for his request. A majority

of the panel prefers not to grant Nelson's request.

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.

WE CONCUR:

Staab, J. Hazel, J.P.T.t

t The Honorable Anthony Hazel is a Superior Court Judge sitting in Division Three under CAR 21 ( c ).