IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of the Marriage of

BETHANY ALHAIDARI,

Petitioner,

and

GHASSAN ABDULRAHMAN 

ALHAIDARI,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 38084-0-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FEARING, C.J. — This appeal presents unique questions of whether Washington 

courts should decline subject matter jurisdiction over a child custody dispute or enforce 

an earlier child custody decree and agreement entered in Saudi Arabia. Father Ghassan 

AlHaidari challenges the Chelan County Superior Court’s exercise of jurisdiction and 

award of temporary custody of the child, ZA, to mother Bethany AlHaidari. RCW 

FILED

NOVEMBER 14, 2023

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals Division III
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

2

26.27.051, a section of Washington’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and 

Enforcement Act, controls. We affirm the superior court’s exercise of jurisdiction on the 

basis of RCW 26.27.051(4), which allows Washington courts to exercise jurisdiction, 

despite a foreign custody decree, if a parent is subject to the death penalty if she returns 

to the foreign nation. 

FACTS

We take the facts from declarations signed by the parties and their witnesses and 

particularly from the superior court’s letter ruling, which includes implied findings of 

fact. We often refer to the father and mother respectively by their first names. We refer 

to their daughter simply as ZA, in order to protect her identity and privacy. 

Ghassan and Bethany AlHaidari married in Saudi Arabia in November 2013. 

Bethany is a United States citizen, and Ghassan is a citizen of Saudi Arabia. The couple 

begot ZA, in Saudi Arabia, in December 2014. ZA is a citizen of both the United States 

and Saudi Arabia. 

Ghassan and Bethany AlHaidari encountered difficulties in their relationship,

which strife worsened over the years. The parties went to counseling in an effort to 

resolve their relationship problems. The problems continued. Bethany claims that 

Ghassan verbally and physically abused her, sometimes in the presence of their daughter. 

Ghassan denies these allegations. 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

3

In September 2017, Bethany AlHaidari asked Ghassan for a divorce. In Saudi 

Arabia, if Bethany filed for divorce, the law demanded that she provide a reason and 

return her dowry. Ghassan could file for divorce without making payment and without 

giving any reason. Ghassan refused the request for a divorce. Later, however, Ghassan 

contended that he had divorced Bethany in 2018. 

Bethany AlHaidari’s legal residence in Saudi Arabia depended on the cooperation 

of Ghassan because, as husband, he was her legal guardian. In 2018, Bethany requested 

that Ghassan update her residency status in Saudi Arabia, and he refused. He also 

refused to allow ZA and Bethany to visit Bethany’s family in Washington State. 

On February 7, 2019, Bethany AlHaidari’s permission from the Saudi Arabia 

government to reside in the county expired. Bethany no longer held legal status in Saudi 

Arabia and, therefore, could not file proceedings in the Saudi court system. She also 

could not pay salaries for her company’s employees, nor access her bank account for risk 

of being deported or jailed. The Saudi government provided her with legal residency 

status again after Bethany spoke to the media and the New York Times published her 

story.

In November 2018, Bethany filed for divorce. Bethany alleged Ghassan’s 

substance abuse and domestic violence to be reasons for divorce. In January 2019, a 

Saudi Arabia judge granted the divorce and custody of ZA to Bethany AlHaidari. 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

4

The Chelan County Superior Court described the January 2019 Saudi divorce 

proceedings: 

1.) Bethany struggled to communicate her position and defend 

herself because she had no legal counsel and the court appointed interpreter 

did not speak or understand basic English. 2.) Bethany was denied 

$26,000 in alimony because Ghassan claimed he “Islamicly divorced” 

Bethany in May of 2018 and swore under oath he was telling the truth, 

despite Bethany’s testimony and text messages expressing his refusal to 

divorce her at that time. Bethany’s testimony was not considered because

she could not provide two male witnesses to support her testimony. 3.) 

Although Bethany wore a full body black covering that also covered her 

hair, she was ordered by the judge to leave the courtroom and only return if 

her entire face, including her eyes, was covered as well. This is particularly 

relevant because it demonstrates the impact of the accusations and photos 

Ghassan presented to the Saudi court later in the case in order to discredit 

Bethany.

Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 994.

The parties dispute whether Ghassan AlHaidari refused to see ZA or Bethany 

denied him visitation after the January 2019 divorce decree. Regardless, in April of 

2019, Ghassan sued Bethany for child visitation. He also asked the court to award 

custody of ZA to his mother, AlBandari AlMigren, with whom he lived at the time.

The parties thereafter engaged in a bitter custody battle in the Riyadh, Saudi 

Arabia court. Both sides tendered inflammatory accusations about the other in an attempt 

to discredit the other’s ability to parent. Ghassan denunciated Bethany as being an unfit 

mother because she had a learning disability, worked full time, and placed ZA in school. 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

5

In April 2019, Ghassan AlHaidari posted a video on social media that showed an 

uncloaked Bethany practicing yoga in Riyadh’s American diplomatic quarters. Ghassan 

also delivered a copy of the video to Saudi police. Police investigated Bethany for 

criminal charges of public indecency and disrupting public order, a criminal charge that 

could result in lashings and imprisonment. 

In the ensuing custody hearing, Ghassan AlHaidari presented to the Saudi judge a 

photograph, taken in the United States, of Bethany in a bikini and the video of her 

practicing yoga. Ghassan also submitted a video of Bethany commenting, during a visit 

between ZA and her father, that it was “me time.” CP at 995.

During the custody battle, Ghassan AlHaidari accused Bethany of gender mixing, 

adultery, and insulting Islam and Saudi Arabia. Gender mixing, a punishable crime, 

entails having a male friend. To prove the charge of adultery, Ghassan submitted a 

photograph of Bethany with a male, who Ghassan claimed to be her boyfriend. The 

crimes of adultery, insulting Islam, and insulting Saudi Arabia carry a death penalty in 

Saudi Arabia.

During the custody proceedings, Bethany AlHaidari asserted that Ghassan had 

agreed that ZA live with Bethany, but now acted from revenge rather than in furtherance 

of ZA’ s well-being. Bethany brought to court videos of verbal abuse and death threats 

from Ghassan and his drug use. The judge declined to view these videos. 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

6

Ghassan’s sister, Leena AlHaidari, testified in court against her own mother, 

AlBandari AlMigren. Leena averred that her mother was abusive, unfit to parent, and 

addicted to pills. 

In June 2019, Saudi Arabia Judge Abdul-Ellah ibn Mohammed Al-Tuwaijiri ruled 

that “‘though all three candidates were unsuitable to parent, the grandmother was better 

than the parents.’” CP at 995. The court derided Bethany as a foreigner, who embraced 

western cultural traditions. The judge lamented that ZA spoke fluent English. According 

to Judge Tuwaijiri, ZA needed protection from Bethany’s western culture and traditions. 

The Saudi court awarded custody to Ghassan’s mother. 

Bethany AlHaidari sought assistance from the media, the United States 

government, and human rights organizations. Meanwhile, Ghassan filed a complaint 

with the Saudi government alleging Bethany refused visitation. The Saudi government 

issued an arrest warrant for Bethany and a ten-year travel ban prohibiting her from 

leaving Saudi Arabia. 

Bethany AlHaidari appealed the custody decision issued by Judge Tuwaijiri. An 

appellate judge ignored the appeal and transferred the case to the civil court to force a 

settlement. After one unsuccessful settlement conference, a Saudi head judge told the 

parties that he awarded no one custody and he was closing the case. 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

7

Under Saudi law, the lack of a court award of custody resulted in Ghassan

AlHaidari, as ZA’s father and guardian, retaining all parental rights. Bethany lacked any 

rights to visitation. The Saudi government barred her from travel with ZA, obtaining an

identification document for ZA, taking ZA to the hospital, or enrolling her in school. 

Bethany AlHaidari reconciled with Ghassan in order to convince him to reach a 

settlement affording her custody rights to ZA. Bethany negotiated for a right to travel in 

exchange for forfeiting all financial claims including child support. In November 2019, 

someone prepared a prospective agreement labeled as a “deed.” The parties did not sign 

the deed, but the deed contains a court stamp and suggests that Judge Abdulelah 

Mohammed Altwaijri, at the Personal Status Court judge in Riyadh, approved the 

agreement. 

The November 2019 deed provides: 

1. Bethany waives her claim for alimony; 

2. Ghassan will pay Bethany 40,000 riyals (approximately $10,800 U.S. 

dollars, based on 1 SAR = 0.266639 USD); 

3. Ghassan will pay the child’s education expenses, but, if financially 

unable, then the parents will alternate paying the child’s education expenses 

annually; 

4. The parents have equal custody of the child and a right of first refusal to 

care for the child when the other parent is unavailable;

5. If a parent dies, the surviving parent is entitled to custody; 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

8

6. The parents are permitted to marry again without impacting their 

custody of the child; 

7. The parties are required to agree on additional custody plans if a parent 

decides to live outside Saudi Arabia; 

8. The parents are responsible for sending the child to school every day; 

9. Bethany is entitled to renew the child’s U.S. passport and keep it in her 

possession while Ghassan maintains the child’s Saudi Arabian passport and 

will give it to Bethany if she desires to travel with the child; 

10. Ghassan will issue a permanent travel issue for the child, but Bethany 

does not have a right to travel abroad with the child without informing 

Ghassan; 

11. The parents may travel with the child to visit family; and 

12. Bethany may not travel with the child outside Saudi Arabia for more 

than 28 days.

In December of 2019, Bethany AlHaidari feigned reconciliation with Ghassan. 

Thereafter she received his permission to travel to the United States with ZA for a visit 

with her family in Wenatchee. She left Saudi Arabia with ZA. 

Bethany AlHaidari has not returned to Saudi Arabia. Bethany admits dishonesty 

in her negotiations with Ghassan, but she testified that she agreed to the terms of the 

November 2019 deed under duress. She agreed to terms in the deed in order to maintain

custody of her daughter and to leave Saudi Arabia. She refuses to return to Saudi Arabia 

or to return ZA to the nation. 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

9

PROCEDURE

On January 23, 2020, Bethany AlHaidari initiated this proceeding with a request 

for the Chelan County Superior Court to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction and 

enter a temporary restraining order and a temporary parenting plan. On February 20, 

2020, the superior court ruled that it possessed temporary emergency jurisdiction under 

RCW 26.27.231 and entered an order granting temporary custody to Bethany. 

On March 25, 2020, Bethany AlHaidari filed a summons and petition for a 

permanent parenting plan and for child support. In an April 3, 2020 pleading, Ghassan 

asked that the Chelan County Superior Court dismiss Bethany’s petition for lack of 

personal jurisdiction over him and subject matter jurisdiction over the custody of ZA. In 

the alternative, Ghassan requested that the superior court enforce the Saudi Arabia 

custody order and the November 2019 deed agreement. 

In her opposition to Ghassan AlHaidari’s requests, Bethany offered declarations 

from Hala AlDosari and Abdullah S. Alaoudh about Saudi law and human rights 

violations. Ghassan raised no objection to the expert qualifications of these individuals. 

Saudi legal expert Dr. Hala Al-Dosari, who has published on Saudi legal practices, 

avowed that Saudi Arabia is the only nation in the world that lacks a codified personal 

status law that addresses custody of divorcing spouse’s children. Male clerics, who study 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

10

only the Quran and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, function as judges and hold 

absolute discretion when awarding child custody. 

Abdullah Alaoudh, a legal expert on Saudi Arabia, serves as an academic at 

Georgetown University and an adjunct professor at George Washington University in 

Islamic political thought. He obtained a degree in Islamic law from Qassim University in 

Saudi Arabia. Alaoudh averred:

In the past few years there have been a systematic human rights 

violation against females, especially those who fought against guardianship 

system or challenge a male guardian. The human rights violations against 

female activists, feminists and females who fought against the male 

guardianship system reached an unprecedented level. Prominent female 

human rights defenders have been arrested for more than two years now, 

tortured, electrocuted, and sexually harassed in jails. Their families were 

threatened and intimidated. In addition, speaking to the media was a 

serious charge in Saudi courts against these female activists and 

individuals. 

Returning a person who fought against a “male guardian” is a very 

risky move that can definitely lead to arrest, torture and serious human 

rights violations in Saudi Arabia. Prominent female activists like Loujain 

al-Hathloul who was returned to Saudi Arabia from the UAE [United Arab 

Emirates] in 2018 led to her arrest, torture, electrocution, sexual harassment 

and other violations. 

CP at 735. Alaoudh added that the settlement deed of November 6, 2019 lacks a stamp 

from the enforcement court. Therefore, under Saudi law, the deed or agreement cannot 

be enforced by a foreign court. 

Ghassan AlHaidari presented a declaration from Abdulaziz Alkhorayef regarding 

the child custody laws of Saudi Arabia. He averred that a legal code constrained Saudi 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

11

judges’ decisions on child custody. Bethany AlHaidari disputed this expert’s opinions

because court records from Saudi Arabia demonstrated that the nation does not have a 

codified system as alleged by Alkhorayef.

On February 8, 2021, the superior court issued a letter ruling that denied 

enforcement of the Saudi Arabia court order and the parties’ November 2019 deed. The 

court, instead, ruled that Washington courts possessed jurisdiction under RCW 

26.27.051(3). The statute directs a Washington court to reject enforcement of a foreign 

nation order and to assume jurisdiction in a child custody case if “the child custody law 

of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.”

In its letter ruling, the superior court reviewed the qualifications of Bethany

AlHaidari’s experts Hala AlDosari and Abdullah S. Alaoudh and found that both 

possessed sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education concerning 

child custody law in Saudi Arabia. The court observed that Ghassan AlHaidari’s expert, 

Abdulaziz Alkhorayef, practiced law in Saudi Arabia and would risk his profession and 

personal standing to speak against Saudi Arabia’s justice system, given the treatment of 

Saudi Arabian dissidents by the Saudi government. Furthermore, his testimony 

contradicted the written court records issued by the Saudi court in the parties’ case.

The superior court agreed with Bethany AlHaidari, based on the Saudi Arabia 

court records, that the Saudi judge afforded Bethany no credibility simply because she 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

12

was female. Declarations from individuals who personally witnessed events confirmed 

Bethany’s declaration testimony. The court highlighted the declaration of Leena 

Abdulrahman AlHaidari, Ghassan’s sister, who testified that Ghassan abused Bethany, 

Ghassan was a neglectful father, Bethany is an excellent mother, and Ghassan’s request 

for his mother’s care for ZA harmed ZA because of the mother’s abusive and neglectful 

behavior toward her own children and ZA. The superior court deemed Leena’s testimony 

believable since her declaration placed her at risk with her family relationships and her 

nation’s society. 

In the February 2021 letter ruling, the trial court found that Saudi Arabia law 

denies women, non-Muslims, and non-Saudi citizens’ due process. The Saudi Arabia 

court denied Bethany due process because the judge did not treat Bethany equal to 

Ghassan. The court reasoned that due process constituted a fundamental human right. 

The superior court also wrote:

Furthermore, Bethany has provided substantial evidence that she 

entered into this agreement under duress so that she could keep ZA 

protected from the abusive paternal grandmother and because she had been 

threatened with deportation if she did not follow through with Ghassan’s 

wishes. Bethany’s evidence demonstrates that she was forced into a 

settlement by the Head of the Court in the Personal Status Court of Riyadh 

and was forced to waive all rights and active appeals in the Saudi courts. 

Fairness cannot occur when a party enters into a settlement and waives their 

rights under duress.

CP at 1003. 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

13

On April 14, 2021, and after the superior court issued its letter ruling, the 

Washington Legislature amended RCW 26.27.051 to add a new subsection (4). The 

amendment became effective on April 14, 2021. LAWS OF 2021, ch. 23, § 1. The 

amendment declares that the Washington custody court need not defer to a foreign 

nation’s jurisdiction when the nation’s law prohibits apostacy and punishes the crime 

with death and if the nation may subject a parent to the harsh law. 

Precisely on the effective date of the amendment, Bethany AlHaidari asked the 

superior court to also rule in her favor on the terms contained in the new amendment. 

She noted that her experts had previously opined that, if Bethany returned to Saudi 

Arabia, Saudi authorities would subject her to prison, if not death, due to her political 

views advocating for human rights in Saudi Arabia. She averred that she would face a

public beheading as the result of blasphemy laws. 

During a hearing on May 5, 2021, the superior court discussed the new exception 

codified in RCW 26.27.051(4). On May 17, 2021, the superior court entered an “order 

on letter ruling of 02/08/21,” which order confirmed its earlier letter ruling. CP at 1155. 

The order contains an interlineation that reads: “Newly enacted RCW 26.27.051(4) is an 

additional ground and support for the court’s ruling.” CP at 1156. During the May 17 

hearing, the superior court asked Ghassan AlHaidari’s counsel if he desired to comment 

about the order, and counsel responded in the negative. 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

14

Ghassan AlHaidari sought review from this appellate court of the superior court’s 

ruling denying enforcement of the Saudi Arabia child custody order and the November 

2019 deed. He also sought review of the ruling exercising jurisdiction over child custody

of ZA. Our court commissioner granted discretionary review. 

LAW AND ANALYSIS

On appeal, Ghassan AlHaidari complains that the superior court failed to 

enforce the parties’ November 2019 deed agreement and in relying on Saudi Arabia 

substantive law other than child custody law, when asserting jurisdiction. Thus, 

according to Ghassan, the court erred in exercising jurisdiction under 

RCW 26.27.051(3)’s provision referencing human rights. Ghassan also assigns error 

to the May 17, 2021 order that relies on RCW 26.27.051(4), the death penalty proviso, 

because the superior court did not mention the statutory subsection in its February 2021 

letter ruling. Because we rely only on the death penalty provision, we do not examine 

RCW 26.27.051(3). 

Application of RCW 26.27.051(4) 

Three provisions of Washington’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and 

Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), ch. 26.27 RCW, control this appeal. First, RCW 26.27.201 

declares, in part: 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

15

(1) Except as otherwise provided in RCW 26.27.231 [relating to 

temporary emergency jurisdiction], a court of this state has jurisdiction to 

make an initial child custody determination only if:

(a) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the 

commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within 

six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is 

absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to 

live in this state;

(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under (a) of 

this subsection. 

Under RCW 26.27.201, a Washington court could exercise jurisdiction over the custody 

of ZA based on Bethany AlHaidari’s intent to reside in Wenatchee with ZA unless some 

other provision of the UCCJEA applies. 

The second statute, RCW 26.27.221 declares:

Except as otherwise provided in RCW 26.27.231, a court of this 

state may not modify a child custody determination made by a court of 

another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial 

determination under RCW 26.27.201(1) (a) or (b) and:

(1) The court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, 

continuing jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.211 or that a court of this state 

would be a more convenient forum under RCW 26.27.261. 

Thus, as argued by Ghassan AlHaidari, unless another UCCJEA provision applies, the 

Washington superior court needed to respect and enforce the child custody ruling of the 

Saudi Arabia court since the foreign court never determined it lacked exclusive 

continuing jurisdiction. 

The third and governing UCCJEA statute, RCW 26.27.051, reads, in pertinent 

part: 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

16

(1) A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a 

state of the United States for the purpose of applying Articles 1 and 2

[including RCW 26.27.221].

(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) or (4) of this 

section, a child custody determination made in a foreign country under 

factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional 

standards of this chapter must be recognized and enforced under Article 3.

(3) A court of this state need not apply this chapter if the child 

custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human 

rights.

(4) A court of this state need not apply this chapter if the law of a 

foreign country holds that apostasy, or a sincerely held religious belief or 

practice, or homosexuality are punishable by death, and a parent or child 

may be at demonstrable risk of being subject to such laws. For the 

purposes of this subsection, “apostasy” means the abandonment or 

renunciation of a religious or political belief.

(Emphasis added.) The Washington Legislature amended RCW 26.27.051 to include 

subsection 4 in 2021, with the proclaimed effective date of April 12, 2021. The 

amendatory act declared: 

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. This act applies to child custody 

proceedings or proceedings to enforce a child custody determination 

pending as of the effective date of this section, or commenced on or after 

the effective date of this section.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. This act is necessary for the immediate 

preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state 

government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect 

immediately.

LAWS OF 2021, ch. 23, § 1. Section 2 of the bill directed application of the new law to 

child custody cases then pending. 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

17

Ghassan AlHaidari concedes that the superior court could have based its ruling in 

part on RCW 26.27.051(4), despite the new subsection’s adoption after the February 

2021 letter ruling. He instead argues that the superior court never referenced the new 

subsection in its February 8, 2021 letter ruling and thus the May 2021 written order could 

not reference subsection (4). 

Of course, the superior court failed to mention the 2021 amendment in its 

February ruling, because the amendment did not yet exist. Ghassan cites no authority for 

the proposition that the court may not add an additional basis for its ruling between the 

time of issuing a letter ruling and signing an order confirming the ruling. A court’s 

memorandum ruling remains subject to change until the signing of a formal written 

judgment. Marsh v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., 57 Wn. App. 610, 619, 

789 P.2d 792 (1990). Ghassan does not complain that the superior court ruled on an 

issue, to which the court never afforded him an opportunity to respond. 

Substance of RCW 26.27.051(4) 

To repeat, a Washington court need not enforce a decree of another nation’s 

child custody decree and may exercise jurisdiction over custody if the law of the 

foreign country punishes “apostacy” by death. RCW 26.27.051(4). The subsection 

defines “apostacy” as “the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

18

belief.” Because of the word “renunciation,” the parent need not have been a former 

believer of a religious belief. 

Ample evidence supports the superior court’s ruling that Bethany AlHaidari

faced a death sentence if she returned to Saudi Arabia because of both her religious 

and political beliefs. Saudi legal experts and Bethany testified to her danger on any 

return. Ghassan AlHaidari does not challenge the superior court’s substantive ruling 

on “apostacy,” only the court’s adding of that ground in the final order without having 

mentioned the basis earlier. In his brief, Ghassan does not dispute that Bethany could 

garner the death sentence on her return to Saudi Arabia. 

Without citing any law, Ghassan AlHaidari complains that the superior court 

refused to enforce the November 2019 deed. Ghassan also assigns no error to the trial 

court’s finding that Bethany signed the deed under duress. A contract is voidable 

when signed under duress. Pleuss v. City of Seattle, 8 Wn. App. 133, 137, 504 P.2d 

1191 (1972). 

CONCLUSION

We affirm the superior court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Ghassan 

AlHaidari for purposes of child custody and exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over 

the child custody of ZA. We remand for further proceedings before the Chelan County 

Superior Court. 
No. 38084-0-III

In re Marriage of AlHaidari

19

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.

_________________________________

Fearing, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Lawrence-Berrey, J.

______________________________

Pennell, J.