Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
April 28, 2026
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II KALVIN MICHAEL KRONMEYER, No. 59964-3-II
Appellant,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEREDITH FAYE GUESMAN,
Respondent.
CHE, J. — Kalvin Kronmeyer and Meredith Guesman have a child, KK, in common.
According to the final parenting plan entered in April 2023, Kronmeyer and Guesman have
mutual decision-making power over childcare and educational decisions. The parenting plan
provided that the parties would engage in mediation for dispute resolution. Their child support
order provides that the parents shall split childcare and educational expenses proportionate to
their incomes. In the summer of 2024, the parties disagreed about which early education
program in which to enroll KK. Guesman enrolled KK in her preferred program. Kronmeyer
moved for contempt, which was denied.
Nine months later, Kronmeyer filed a second motion for an order finding Guesman in
contempt for violating the parenting plan’s provision for mutual decision making by enrolling
KK in her preferred school. Guesman also filed a motion for an order finding Kronmeyer in
contempt of the child support order for failing to pay his proportionate share of childcare and
educational expenses for the school. The trial court again found that Guesman was not in No. 59964-3-II
contempt of the parenting plan but found Kronmeyer was in contempt of the child support order.
The trial court ordered that Kronmeyer must pay the past due childcare and educational expenses
to purge the contempt.
Kronmeyer argues that the trial court erred by finding him in contempt and not finding
Guesman in contempt and by ordering that he pay the owing childcare expenses. We disagree
and affirm.
FACTS
Kronmeyer and Guesman have a child, KK, in common. A final parenting plan was
entered in April 2023. It is not disputed that the parenting plan gave joint decision-making
authority over childcare and educational decisions. The parenting plan also provided that the
parties would engage in mediation for dispute resolution. The child support order provided that
the parents shall split childcare and educational expenses proportionate to their incomes. The
order further provided that each parent pay their proportional share directly to the provider.1
Following entry of the final parenting plan, the parties disagreed over where KK should
enroll in an early education program. Guesman enrolled KK in her preferred daycare program,
without Kronmeyer’s agreement. In July 2023, Kronmeyer filed a motion for an order to show
cause, arguing that Guesman was in contempt of the final parenting plan’s provision that the
daycare provider for KK be a joint decision. Kronmeyer contended that Guesman enrolled KK
in a daycare, over his objection, that was significantly more expensive than previous care. The
trial court denied Kronmeyer’s motion. Kronmeyer did not appeal that decision.
1 Kronmeyer failed to designate both the parenting plan and the child support order in the record on appeal. Excerpts of the orders were read into the record at the contempt hearing and appear in the verbatim report of proceedings.
2 No. 59964-3-II
In March 2024, the trial court entered an order finding Kronmeyer in contempt for failing
to pay his proportionate share of childcare expenses from September 2023 to January 2024. The
trial court ordered Kronmeyer to pay Guesman $3,575 in childcare costs over the following three
months.
In June 2024, Kronmeyer filed another motion for contempt, again arguing that Guesman
had violated the parenting plan’s provision for joint decision-making by enrolling KK in a
childcare program to which he objected.2 That same month, Guesman filed a motion for
contempt, contending that Kronmeyer had failed to pay his proportional share of childcare
expenses from February 2024 through June 2024.
The trial court held a hearing on both motions. As to Kronmeyer’s motion, the trial court
ruled that Guesman was not in contempt of the parenting plan by enrolling KK in a
non-agreed-to childcare program over Kronmeyer’s objection. Specifically, the trial court found
that Guesman had not willfully violated the parenting plan. The trial court explained that while
the parties disagreed about childcare, neither party requested mediation on the issue nor brought
a motion with the court to determine the issue. The trial court noted that the court had reviewed
the childcare issue in August 2023 and did not change the status quo at that time. The trial court
directed Kronmeyer and Guesman to go to mediation to discuss the childcare provider per the
2023 parenting plan and file a motion with the court only if they are unable to reach an
agreement.
2 Kronmeyer did not designate this motion in the record on appeal, but he did include his declaration filed in support of the motion.
3 No. 59964-3-II
As to Guesman’s motion for contempt, the trial court found that Kronmeyer was in
contempt of the child support order by failing to pay his proportional share of childcare expenses
between February 2024 and June 2024. The trial court found further that both parties were
aware of the months and location where the child was receiving childcare between February
2024 and June 2024 and that childcare expenses were being incurred. The trial court considered
receipts of Guesman’s payments to the childcare provider for her proportional share of the
expenses. The trial court stated that both parties had the ability to contact the childcare provider
at any time to verify the monthly expenses incurred and to obtain information about the childcare
charges.
The trial court noted that this was the second contempt finding against Kronmeyer since
March 2024 regarding nonpayment for childcare expenses. In order to purge the contempt, the
trial court required Kronmeyer to pay all the unpaid amounts, which totaled $7,221.60, within
three months and to comply with the court orders moving forward.
Kronmeyer appeals. ANALYSIS
We review a trial court’s decision on contempt for an abuse of discretion. DeVogel v.
Padilla, 22 Wn. App. 2d 39, 53, 509 P.3d 832 (2022). A trial court abuses its discretion if its
decision is based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. In re Marriage of Davisson, 131
Wn. App. 220, 224, 126 P.3d 76 (2006). We strictly construe the court order and a contempt
finding must be supported by facts constituting a plain violation of the order. Id.
Kronmeyer first argues that the trial court erred by finding him in contempt. But
Kronmeyer focuses his argument on his contention that Guesman violated the parenting plan.
See Br. of Appellant at 7-9. To the extent Kronmeyer is attempting to argue that he had no
4 No. 59964-3-II
responsibility to pay his share of the childcare expenses because Guesman enrolled KK in her
preferred program and over Kronmeyer’s objection, his argument is unavailing. Nothing in the
record supports the notion that Kronmeyer is only responsible for expenses to which he
affirmatively agrees. It is undisputed that the child support order provides that the parents shall
split childcare and educational expenses proportionate to their incomes.3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
April 28, 2026
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II KALVIN MICHAEL KRONMEYER, No. 59964-3-II
Appellant,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEREDITH FAYE GUESMAN,
Respondent.
CHE, J. — Kalvin Kronmeyer and Meredith Guesman have a child, KK, in common.
According to the final parenting plan entered in April 2023, Kronmeyer and Guesman have
mutual decision-making power over childcare and educational decisions. The parenting plan
provided that the parties would engage in mediation for dispute resolution. Their child support
order provides that the parents shall split childcare and educational expenses proportionate to
their incomes. In the summer of 2024, the parties disagreed about which early education
program in which to enroll KK. Guesman enrolled KK in her preferred program. Kronmeyer
moved for contempt, which was denied.
Nine months later, Kronmeyer filed a second motion for an order finding Guesman in
contempt for violating the parenting plan’s provision for mutual decision making by enrolling
KK in her preferred school. Guesman also filed a motion for an order finding Kronmeyer in
contempt of the child support order for failing to pay his proportionate share of childcare and
educational expenses for the school. The trial court again found that Guesman was not in No. 59964-3-II
contempt of the parenting plan but found Kronmeyer was in contempt of the child support order.
The trial court ordered that Kronmeyer must pay the past due childcare and educational expenses
to purge the contempt.
Kronmeyer argues that the trial court erred by finding him in contempt and not finding
Guesman in contempt and by ordering that he pay the owing childcare expenses. We disagree
and affirm.
FACTS
Kronmeyer and Guesman have a child, KK, in common. A final parenting plan was
entered in April 2023. It is not disputed that the parenting plan gave joint decision-making
authority over childcare and educational decisions. The parenting plan also provided that the
parties would engage in mediation for dispute resolution. The child support order provided that
the parents shall split childcare and educational expenses proportionate to their incomes. The
order further provided that each parent pay their proportional share directly to the provider.1
Following entry of the final parenting plan, the parties disagreed over where KK should
enroll in an early education program. Guesman enrolled KK in her preferred daycare program,
without Kronmeyer’s agreement. In July 2023, Kronmeyer filed a motion for an order to show
cause, arguing that Guesman was in contempt of the final parenting plan’s provision that the
daycare provider for KK be a joint decision. Kronmeyer contended that Guesman enrolled KK
in a daycare, over his objection, that was significantly more expensive than previous care. The
trial court denied Kronmeyer’s motion. Kronmeyer did not appeal that decision.
1 Kronmeyer failed to designate both the parenting plan and the child support order in the record on appeal. Excerpts of the orders were read into the record at the contempt hearing and appear in the verbatim report of proceedings.
2 No. 59964-3-II
In March 2024, the trial court entered an order finding Kronmeyer in contempt for failing
to pay his proportionate share of childcare expenses from September 2023 to January 2024. The
trial court ordered Kronmeyer to pay Guesman $3,575 in childcare costs over the following three
months.
In June 2024, Kronmeyer filed another motion for contempt, again arguing that Guesman
had violated the parenting plan’s provision for joint decision-making by enrolling KK in a
childcare program to which he objected.2 That same month, Guesman filed a motion for
contempt, contending that Kronmeyer had failed to pay his proportional share of childcare
expenses from February 2024 through June 2024.
The trial court held a hearing on both motions. As to Kronmeyer’s motion, the trial court
ruled that Guesman was not in contempt of the parenting plan by enrolling KK in a
non-agreed-to childcare program over Kronmeyer’s objection. Specifically, the trial court found
that Guesman had not willfully violated the parenting plan. The trial court explained that while
the parties disagreed about childcare, neither party requested mediation on the issue nor brought
a motion with the court to determine the issue. The trial court noted that the court had reviewed
the childcare issue in August 2023 and did not change the status quo at that time. The trial court
directed Kronmeyer and Guesman to go to mediation to discuss the childcare provider per the
2023 parenting plan and file a motion with the court only if they are unable to reach an
agreement.
2 Kronmeyer did not designate this motion in the record on appeal, but he did include his declaration filed in support of the motion.
3 No. 59964-3-II
As to Guesman’s motion for contempt, the trial court found that Kronmeyer was in
contempt of the child support order by failing to pay his proportional share of childcare expenses
between February 2024 and June 2024. The trial court found further that both parties were
aware of the months and location where the child was receiving childcare between February
2024 and June 2024 and that childcare expenses were being incurred. The trial court considered
receipts of Guesman’s payments to the childcare provider for her proportional share of the
expenses. The trial court stated that both parties had the ability to contact the childcare provider
at any time to verify the monthly expenses incurred and to obtain information about the childcare
charges.
The trial court noted that this was the second contempt finding against Kronmeyer since
March 2024 regarding nonpayment for childcare expenses. In order to purge the contempt, the
trial court required Kronmeyer to pay all the unpaid amounts, which totaled $7,221.60, within
three months and to comply with the court orders moving forward.
Kronmeyer appeals. ANALYSIS
We review a trial court’s decision on contempt for an abuse of discretion. DeVogel v.
Padilla, 22 Wn. App. 2d 39, 53, 509 P.3d 832 (2022). A trial court abuses its discretion if its
decision is based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. In re Marriage of Davisson, 131
Wn. App. 220, 224, 126 P.3d 76 (2006). We strictly construe the court order and a contempt
finding must be supported by facts constituting a plain violation of the order. Id.
Kronmeyer first argues that the trial court erred by finding him in contempt. But
Kronmeyer focuses his argument on his contention that Guesman violated the parenting plan.
See Br. of Appellant at 7-9. To the extent Kronmeyer is attempting to argue that he had no
4 No. 59964-3-II
responsibility to pay his share of the childcare expenses because Guesman enrolled KK in her
preferred program and over Kronmeyer’s objection, his argument is unavailing. Nothing in the
record supports the notion that Kronmeyer is only responsible for expenses to which he
affirmatively agrees. It is undisputed that the child support order provides that the parents shall
split childcare and educational expenses proportionate to their incomes.3
The trial court had previously found Kronmeyer in contempt for failing to pay his share
of these expenses just three months earlier; he was well aware of his financial obligation.
Kronmeyer was aware that KK was enrolled in childcare, he knew where KK was attending
childcare, and he knew how to contact the provider. Nonetheless, Kronmeyer willfully failed to
pay his proportional share of the childcare expenses. Additionally, Kronmeyer did not pursue
mediation to resolve his dispute with Guesman about where KK would attend childcare, as
provided for in the parenting plan. Under these facts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by finding Kronmeyer in contempt for failing to pay his proportional share of the childcare
expenses as ordered in the child support order.
Kronmeyer also argues that the trial court erred by not finding Guesman in contempt of
the parenting plan for enrolling KK in her preferred childcare program. Kronmeyer contends
that there were “many other options” for childcare and that Guesman is not under financial
hardship. Br. of Appellant at 9. But even if true, these facts do not demonstrate that the trial
court abused its discretion by not finding Guesman in contempt.
3 Kronmeyer’s argument that childcare was supposed to be a joint decision was rejected by the trial court at the show cause hearing. Kronmeyer did not appeal the trial court’s ruling at the show cause hearing; instead, Kronmeyer has challenged the contempt order in this appeal. Thus, to the extent Kronmeyer is challenging an issue that was decided at the show cause hearing, his challenge is untimely.
5 No. 59964-3-II
The parties do not dispute that the parenting plan provided for joint decision-making
authority over childcare and education decisions. While it is clear that Kronmeyer was not
happy with Guesman’s selection of childcare for KK, Guesman had the authority to enroll KK in
a program. Kronmeyer could have pursued mediation to resolve the issue but did not. His
passive acquiescence negates a finding that Guesman willfully violated the parenting plan such
that the trial court abused its discretion by not finding her in contempt.
Finally, Kronmeyer argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay the
outstanding childcare expenses in order to purge his contempt. He contends that Guesman failed
to adequately prove that the expenses were actually incurred. Kronmeyer notes that Guesman
supported her motion with a declaration from herself and the childcare provider, but dismisses
their credibility as self-serving.
Notably, Kronmeyer failed to adequately perfect the record to support this argument.
“The appellant has the burden of perfecting the record so that the court has before it all the
evidence relevant to the issue.” In re Marriage of Haugh, 58 Wn. App. 1, 6, 790 P.2d 1266
(1990); RAP 9.2(b). He did not designate the childcare provider’s declaration. The transcript
from the contempt hearing indicates that Guesman provided receipts for her payments to the
childcare provider, representing her proportional share of the expenses. The receipts appear to
reflect Guesman’s portion of the childcare was paid by digital payment service. Based on these
receipts and the undisputed fact that the child support order directs each parent to pay their
proportional shares directly to the childcare provider, the trial court found the outstanding costs
credible. On this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Kronmeyer to pay
the back childcare costs in order to purge his contempt.
6 No. 59964-3-II
We affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Che, J. We concur:
L ee, P.J.
Cruser, J.