Divorced Parents' Ability to Designate Who Watches Children When Busy

Divorced clients often dislike whoever their ex-spouse has watching their children during the ex-spouse's residential time.  These clients then ask whether their ex-spouse has the legal authority to choose who cares for the children when the kids are supposed to be with the ex.  The answer is "usually they do have that right."  In the seminal case Magnusson v. Johannesson, 108 Wash.App. 109 (2001), Division I of Washington's Court of Appeals wrote that "[o]rdinarily, a parent may designate other caretakers even though the parenting plan makes no special finding or conclusion on the topic."

Divorcing parents concerned about this issue have recourse, however.  Typically courts will write a "right of first refusal" into the parenting plan if one of the parents simply asks for it while the parenting plan is being formulated.  This "right of first refusal" requires the parents to offer the child to the other parent when the former parent is unable to watch the child him/herself.  If you are fearful of who your soon-to-be ex-spouse might have watch your child(ren), you should certainly consider requesting a right of first refusal.

Another option is to request that the parenting plan prohibit either parent from placing the child(ren) in the care of certain named people who are known to be dangerous.  For example, a divorcing spouse might ask the court to order a parenting plan provision that states "Neither parent shall expose the child to John Smith, who has two drug-related convictions."

Once the parenting plan is in place, concerned parents typically find themselves without much recourse except in extreme scenarios where the other parent places the child in the care of someone dangerous to the child's well-being.  Endangering the child can be reason for a domestic violence protection order.  Jeopardy to the child's well-being can also be reason to modify the parenting plan depending on the magnitude of the suspected harm.

If you read this post, you might also be interested in:

1. Divorce in Snohomish County: A website offering free tips and explanations.
2. Genesis Law Firm, PLLC: Divorce Attorneys in Snohomish County.
3. Apportionment of Long-Distance Travel Expenses in Washington Custody Cases.
4. New Test Disproving False Accusations of Alcohol Abuse in Snohomish County Custody Disputes.
5. Child Witnesses in Family: Using Child Witnesses in Snohomish County, Washington Divorce Cases. 
6. Interplay Between Divorce and Federal Tax Filings in Washington State

Interplay Between Divorce and Federal Tax Filings in Washington State

Snohomish County family law (divorce) commissioners conservatively assume they lack authority to order divorcing parties to file joint federal tax returns, even though joint returns often maximize the former marital communities' refunds.  This begs the question: what clear authority, if any, do Washington courts have over divorce parties' federal tax filings?  Quite a bit actually.


Washington case law indicates married parties’ federal tax payments and obligations are community in character and subject to court allocation between the divorcing parties. Hanson v. Hanson, 55 Wn.2d 884, 888 (1960).  For example, a state court has authority to determine how much each party should pay towards a community tax obligation and to order contribution payments from one divorcee to the other when the former pays more than his or her share. See id. at 887-88.  Similarly, Washington courts can allocate parents’ federal child-related tax exemptions between divorcees to assure that the financial situations of the parents are maximized. In re Marriage of Peterson, 80 Wash.App. 148, 156 (1995).  There appears to be only one clear limitation on divorce proceedings regarding court authority over federal tax issues.  That is, a court presiding over a divorce cannot issue an order hindering the rights of a third party creditor--including the IRS--to collect amounts one or both divorcing parties owe the creditor. Hanson, 55 Wn.2d at 887-88.


If you read this post, you may also be interested in:

1. Divorce in Snohomish County: A website offering free tips and explanations.
2. Apportionment of Long-Distance Travel Expenses in Washington Custody Cases.
3. New Test Disproving False Accusations of Alcohol Abuse in Snohomish County Custody Disputes.
4. Child Witnesses in Family: Using Child Witnesses in Snohomish County, Washington Divorce Cases.

Apportionment of Long-Distance Travel Expenses in Washington Custody Cases

Washington law is very clear about the apportionment of expenses for long-distance travel between parents' homes for visitation with children.  Long-distance travel costs to and from the parents’ homes for visitation purposes must be shared by the parents in the same proportion as the basic child support obligation. In re Paternity of Hewitt, 98 Wash. App. 85, 86 (1999) (interpreting RCW 26.19.080(3)).  For a child too young to travel alone, the long-distance travel costs of both the child and the companion are apportioned. Id. at 89.  Similarly, a parent’s long-distance travel costs must be apportioned when a) the child is too young to travel alone and b) the parent travels to visit the child instead of the child and companion traveling to visit the parent. Id.  Division I of Washington’s Court of Appeals expressed the above-stated rules of apportionment in the following words:

We have held that a trial court must apportion travel costs between the parents in the same proportion as the basic support obligation, in a case where the child traveled back and forth between the parents.  We are now asked to decide where, as here, the parent must travel back and forth to visit the child because the child is too young to travel.

We hold the general rule requiring apportionment of the long-distance travel expenses applies in this case.  Daniel is too young to travel alone.  Thus, in order for Negrie to visit with his son, either he must travel to Boston, or Daniel must travel to Washington with a companion.  If Daniel travels with a companion, under RCW 26.19.080(3), the costs of both the child and the companion will be apportioned.  Moreover, the costs would likely be higher than if Negrie traveled to Boston to carry out the visitation.  Thus, we see no basis for distinguishing the present situation from one in which the child travels to visit the parents.

Id. (citations omitted).


To learn more about divorce-related topics, explore this blog and its companion website, Divorce in Snohomish County.

New Test Disproving False Accusations of Alcohol Abuse in Snohomish County Custody Disputes

Divorcing parents often wrongfully accuse each other of alcohol abuse to gain child custody. Until recently there wasn't much the wrongfully accused spouse could do to clear his or her name. The lying spouse would say the drinking occurred behind the former family's closed doors, so there wouldn't be any third-party witnesses to deny the accusations of problem drinking. Clean urine test results were also of relatively little evidentiary value to the accused, because the results only showed a few days' history at most. Worst of all, when in doubt local courts sometimes awarded custody to wrongful accusers rather than risk placing children with potential alcoholics.

Thankfully at least a few Snohomish County divorce and custody lawyers are changing the outcome of the custody battles with a somewhat new test--the EtG/EtS (hereafter "EtG") hair alcohol test. The EtG hair test tends to show whether the test subject has been significantly intoxicated within the previous 90 days. The look-back period of 90 days is long enough to cast serious doubt on unfounded allegations.

Also good news, Snohomish County is gaining familiarity with the EtG hair test, and local courts often accept EtG hair results into evidence despite the test's newness. If you've been wrongfully accused of problem drinking in your Snohomish County custody battle, you probably want to consider submitting to this test.