Opinion
No. 57347-1-I.
March 19, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-3-01172-3, Carol A. Schapira, J., entered November 9, 2005.
Counsel for Appellant(s), David George Kontos, Attorney at Law, Kent, WA.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Richard Wade Ewing (Appearing Pro Se), Renton, WA.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
We review a trial court's decisions regarding modification of a parenting plan for abuse of discretion. Because there was no recent evidence to support requiring mental health evaluation or treatment, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to require such evaluation or treatment. We affirm.
FACTS
Jamie and Richard Ewing were married in 2002 and divorced in 2004. They have one child, Chance. The trial court originally entered a parenting plan on June 15, 2004. This plan placed restrictions on Richard's time with Chance because of prior acts of domestic violence, assault, or sexual assault. The restrictions made Richard's time with Chance contingent on his enrollment in and successful completion of drug and alcohol evaluation and treatment, domestic violence perpetrator's treatment, parenting classes, and mental health counseling as advised by his treatment provider. After Jamie filed a motion to modify the parenting plan and the trial court found adequate cause, the trial court held a hearing on October 24, 2005. At the close of the hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred and that modification was in the best interests of the child. In finding a substantial change in circumstances, the court specifically referred to the fact that Richard had "not complied with the treatment and other conditions upon which his contact with the minor child was contingent under the June 15, 2004 plan" and that Richard had questionable urinalysis results in August of 2004. The court entered a new parenting plan setting out a phased schedule for Richard's time with Chance. Under this schedule, visits would occur twice a week for two hours, and be professionally supervised for nine weeks. After Richard enrolled in parenting classes and completed drug and alcohol evaluation and initiated any recommendations, he would be able to visit Chance from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on the first, third and fourth Sundays of the month with supervision by one of three specified friends or family members. Jamie appeals the trial court's decision regarding the parenting plan provisions.
DECISION
Jamie contends that the trial court erred in failing to include a requirement that Richard obtain mental health counseling. We review a trial court's order modifying a parenting plan for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Lawrence, 105 Wn. App. 683, 686, 20 P.3d 972 (2001), citing In re Marriage of Kovacs, 121 Wn.2d 795, 801, 854 P.2d 629 (1993), and In re Marriage of Wicklund, 84 Wn. App. 763, 770, 932 P.2d 652 (1996).
Jamie argues that the new parenting plan fails to protect Chance's best interests by decreasing the prerequisites Richard must meet in order to gain less restricted visitation. Jamie's counsel argued in closing that the mental health concerns were most important. But the trial court noted that there was no recent evidence supporting a requirement of mental health counseling. A review of the record shows that the evidence of recent incidents related to Richard's drug use and urinalysis test results and to his parenting skills. Richard had a positive urinalysis in August of 2005, and the visitation supervisor stated that his drug use was her most important concern. The visitation supervisor also stated concerns that Richard brought Chance lots of candy, had trouble maintaining his focus on Chance, made derogatory comments about Jamie during visitation, and encouraged Chance to run across a parking lot at a busy restaurant. We conclude that these facts support the trial court's findings and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to require mental health counseling because there were no recent incidents to support it.
Affirmed.