IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN RE PARENTAGE OF P.A.A. ALEMAYEHU A. JIMMA, Appellant,

v. ADDISALEM WORDOFA, Respondent. No. 74101-2-1 _: DIVISION ONE 2^

CO 

### UNPUBLISHED OPINION a\
FILED: November 14. 2016 

### Spearman, J. — Inthis parentage action, Alemayehu Jimma appeals pro 

### se the finalparenting plan, the orderof childsupport, the permanent restraining 

### order and the award of attorney fees entered by the trial court.1 Jimma fails, however, to provide a complete record for review of his claimed errors. Nordoes he make specific assignments of error, provide meaningful legal analysis, cite to 

### relevant legal authority or to the record. Becausethese deficiencies preclude our review ofJimma's claims, we affirm. FACTS 

### Addisalem Wordofa and Alemayehu Jimma are parents of a young son, 

### P.A.A. The parties had been living together but separated in early 2013. Since then P.A.A. has lived primarily withWordofa but would regularly visit his father.

1Jimma also appeals the orderquashing his temporary protection orderfiled on November26, 2014 and quashed on December 5, 2014. Because this orderis not a final judgment in the parentage action, it is not properly before us on appeal. RAP 2.2(a)(1).No. 74101-2-1/2 On June 23, 2013, Wordofa wentto the police afterJimma refused to return P.A.A. to her care. She filed for a domestic violence protection orderthe following day (No. 13-2-23944-2 SEA). On September27, 2013, the parties signed an agreement in which Jimma agreed to take a deoxynbonucleic acid (DNA) test to determine paternity as to P.A.A., undertake treatmentfor domestic violence, and avoid all contactwith Wordofa. The agreement specified when and where the parties would meetto transfer their son, and that a third party would assist with the transfers. After the agreementwas signed, Wordofa dismissed the petition for the protective order. In October2013, a problem arose with the exchanges because the third 

### party decided not to participate any longer. Because the agreementdid not provide alternative guidelines fortransferring the child, the parties' relationship soured. AfterWordofa kept P.A.A. for a few weeks, Jimma filed a motion for contempt, claiming that she was abusing and neglecting their son. On December 23, 2013, the trial court denied the motion for contempt. The trial courtfound thatthe parties' agreement was enforceable, but that "the 

### parties need[ed] to pursue an appropriate action and were advised to file a 

### parentage action." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 78. The parties agreed to followthe visitation provision ofthe agreement and designated an alternate location forthe exchange ifthe third party was not available. Wordofa filed a parentage action on March 28, 2014, in King County 

### Superior Court, Cause No. 14-5-00445-2 SEA (the ParentageAction). She also requested a permanent restraining order against Jimma and submitted a 2No. 74101-2-1/3 proposed parenting plan. Inthis plan, Wordofa requested that Jimma's time be limited for history of acts ofdomestic violence, abusive use ofconflict, withholding access to the child, "a pattern ofcoercive and controlling behavior against the mother." CP at 19. She also requested that the trial court order Jimma to enroll in a domestic violence treatment program and an early childhood parenting course. Wordofa's proposed plan provided that P.A.A. reside with her for the majority ofthe time and gave her sole decision-making power under RCW 26.09.191. Jimma was served with the summons and petition on April 13, 2014. He immediately called the police and alleged thatWordofa was abusing P.A.A. He also filed for a restraining order and did not transfer P.A.A. as scheduled. The 

### Seattle Police Department investigated the allegations ofabuse but concluded 

### they were unfounded. Wordofa sought an ex parte restraining order on April 30,
2014. 

### On May 14, 2014, the familycourt commissioner heard the motions for restraining orders and fortemporary orders inthe parentage action. The commissionerentered a temporary parenting plan and imposed mutual 

### restraining orders againstthe parties, but reserved findings under RCW 26.09.191 and restrictions on residential time, pending final or further order ofthe court. The commissioneralso referred the matterto Family Court Services (FCS) for evaluation ofWordofa's claims of domestic violence and Jimma's allegations
of child abuse.No. 74101-2-1/4 On May 27, 2014, Wordofa moved for revision ofthe commissioner's ruling to remove the restraining order against her and requestthat the court enter
a new temporary parenting plan. On June 17, 2014, the State appeared inthe action and requested that child support be determined and ordered. The trial court granted Wordofa's motion for revision in part and terminated the restraining order against her. The court entered a new temporary parenting plan, but reserved the issue ofwhetherto impose restrictions on residential time or decision-making until afterthe FCS evaluation had been completed. The trial court maintained the temporary restraining order against Jimma.On November 26, 2014, Jimma filed an objection to the parenting plan, titled "Response ... to Petition for Residential Schedule/Parenting Plan/Child Support ByWay of Counterclaim for Custody." CP at 157-162. He also sought and obtained a temporary restraining order againstWordofa. On December4, 2014, Jimma filed a motion for revision ofa commissioner's order and for a change ofvenue orjudge. Itappears that the revision motion was denied but that 

### the matterwas assigned to a different judge.2 On December 5, 2014, the commissionerentered an orderto quash the temporary restraining order againstWordofa and awarded her attorney fees. The

court found

2The record does not include the orders containing these decisions but the docket lists an order denying motion/petition entered on December 8, 2014, an order granting the motion to changejudge entered on December 12, 2014 and an orderforchange ofjudge entered on December 16, 2014. 4No. 74101-2-1/5 

### "thatthe respondent's motion for ex parte restraining orderwas improper and the court views this as abusive use of conflict. Ifthe respondent/father wants to pursue anotheremergency order inthe 

### future, he must present itbefore CommissionerVelategui only after he has provided at leasttwo days[']notice to the mother's attorney. The father's notice must be in writing and must be delivered by a third party to the mother's attorney. Notice may not be mailed." CP at 220-221. On January 12, 2015, Jimma filed a motion to revise the commissioner's December 5. 2014 order, seeking reinstatement ofthe temporary restraining 

### order againstWordofa. The motion was denied.3 Trial commenced on July 21, 2015. On September 14, 2015, the trial court entered findings offact and conclusions of law, ajudgment and order determining parentage and granting additional relief, a final parenting plan, a final order of child support and worksheets, and a restraining order. The trial court found that a continuing restraining orderwas necessary, because: The Respondent has engaged in a pattern ofcoercion and retaliation, both when the parties were together and aftertheir January 2013 separation. A restraining order is necessary to prevent the Respondentfrom continuing to retaliate againstthe Petitioner afterthis legal action concludes. Respondent has shown that he will not stop trying to hurt the Petitioner unless the court intervenes. Family Court Services found thatthe Respondent engages inthe abusive use ofconflict (Trial Ex. 1). In December 2014, CommissionerVelategui also made a finding that the Respondent engages inthe abusive use ofconflict (Dkt 61A). Withoutthe court's intervention, the Petitionerjustifiablyfears his retaliation will escalate to stalking and physical violence as it did when they were together.

3 There is no order ofdenial included in the record but it is listed on the docket as Sub. #82, Order Denying Motion/Petition, entered on February 20, 2015.No. 74101-2-1/6 

### Br. ofRespondent, Appendix (App.) 1 at 2.5.4Additionally, the trial court found that "the conflict between the parties is being perpetuated primarily by the father and as such an abusive use ofconflict restriction is appropriate." Id. at 2.8. Furthermore, the court also found that Jimma had not "taken full advantage of his visitation time with the child and on several occasions has cancelled visits shortly before they


### were to begin. The court finds thatthefather's pattern and habit ofcanceling his scheduled visits in this manner is an abusive use ofthe father's visitation rights 

### and that ithas significantly and negatively affected the mother. . . ."jd. In its final parenting plan, the court restricted Jimma's residential time under RCW 26.09.191 because he had engaged inabusive use of conflict and he had abused the child inthe past. The trial court also granted Wordofa sole 

### decision-making authority. The court structured Jimma's residential time in 

### phases, whichwere initially limited to one night per week (Phase 1)with the 

### possibility ofexpansion to include every otherweekend (Phase 2). In order for Jimma to have weekend residential time, the trial court ordered him to complete


### a state certified anger management program and exercise six months of visitation without four or more cancellations on fewer than 24 hours' notice. If 

### Jimma fails to pick up orcancel more than four times, the order permitted Wordofa to seek modification ofthe parenting plan.

4Jimma has failed to comply with RAP 9.6(b)(1)(D)(F) which requires the party seeking review to include as part of the record on appeal any written orders, finding of fact and conclusion of law of which review is sought. In particular, the record here does not include the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the finalparenting plan, the finalorderof child supportor the restraining order. However, because these documents were provided as appendices to respondent's brief, we considerthem as a courtesy to Jimma who, as we have noted, is representing himself in this appeal. 6No. 74101-2-1/7 The order also provided that

"[i]fat any time the court finds that the father has brought a matter to the courtthat is without merit, the mother may move the courtto orderthat the father shall remain in (or revert back to) the Phase 1 schedule until he has completed a mental health screening and worked with a providerfor three months or longer on managing 

### and understanding the impact of his behavior on the child." Br. of Resp., App.2 at 3.10(A). Additionally, ifJimma failed "to return the child at the end ofany visit without good cause, he may be found in contempt and his 

### residential time may be reduced upon the mother's motion. Id. at 3.10(C). The trial court also accepted Wordofa's child supportworksheets, 

### including her actual income and Jimma's imputed income, and used those values to calculate Jimma's child support obligations. Jimma failed to provide any income information. The trial court also entered a final Restraining Order against 

### Jimma and a moneyjudgmentfor $1,188 inattorney's fees. 

### Jimma, acting pro se, appeals the findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

### thejudgment and orderdetermining parentage and granting additional relief, the final parenting plan, the finalorderof childsupport, the restraining order, and the award ofattorney fees.5 DISCUSSION 

### Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and must 

### complywith allprocedural rules on appeal. In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App.

5Jimma also appears to seek review of certain post trialorders, including an order entered on January 12, 2016 finding him incontemptfor violating the parenting plan. Butbecause he failed to designate the orders in his Notice of Appeal we decline to review them. Generally, under RAP 2.4(a), we will review only "the decision or parts of the decision" the appellant designates in the notice of appeal. Although there are exceptions to this rule, none of them are applicable here. 7No. 74101-2-1/8 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993). Failure to do so may preclude appellate review. State v. Marintorres, 93 Wn. App. 442, 452, 969 P.2d 501 (1999). An appellant must provide "argument in support ofthe issues presented for review, togetherwith citations to legal authority and references to relevant parts ofthe record." RAP 10.3(a)(6). Arguments that are not supported by any reference to the record or by citation of authority need not be considered. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Boslev, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992). 

### Unchallenged findings offact are verities on appeal. Zunino v. Raiewski, 140Wn. App. 215, 220, 165 P.3d 57 (2007) overruled on other grounds by Hanna v. Margitan, 193 Wn. App. 596, 373 P.3d 300 (2016). As a preliminary matter, Jimma's brief contains a statement ofthe case with no citations to the record. This violates the rules of appellate procedure, 

### which require that "[rjeference to the record must be included for each factual statement." RAP 10.3(a)(5). Jimma also fails to provide any discernible 

### assignments oferror, aside from stating that "allfindings in this matter are those that are NOT based on any evidence inthe record that could supportthe 

### decision ofthe court. . . ." Br. of Appellant, section 17.6 We review a trial court's findings offact and conclusions of law to determine whether substantial evidence inthe record supports the findings and, if 

### so, whetherthe findings supportthe trial court's conclusions. In re Marriage of Fahev, 164 Wn. App. 42, 55-56, 262 P.3d 128 (2011). The party seeking review

6Because the pages ofJimma's opening briefare not numbered, we refer to the sections of his briefin which the quoted text appears. 8No. 74101-2-1/9 

### has the burden ofperfecting the record so that the reviewing court has before it all ofthe relevant evidence. Bulzomi v. Dep't of Labor &Industries, 72 Wn. App. 522, 525, 864 P.2d 996 (1994). An insufficient record on appeal precludes review ofthe assigned error. Id. Here, the record is woefully incomplete. Jimma has not provided a full 

### verbatim report ofproceedings ofthe trial. Absent a verbatim report of proceedings, this court must assume that the evidence sustained the trial court's 

### findings. Morris v. Woodside, 101 Wn.2d 812, 815, 682 P.2d 905 (1984). Thus the trial court's findings offact regarding Jimma's parentage status, actions, and financial situation, are verities on appeal. 

### The trial courtfound that Jimma had "engaged in a pattern ofcoercion and retaliation," and thatWordofa "justifiablyfear[ed] his retaliation will escalate to 

### stalking and physical violence. . . ." Br. ofResp., Appx. 1. The trial court also found that his "pattern and habit ofcanceling his scheduled visits... [was] an 

### abusive use ofthe father's visitation rights" and thatJimma had "abused his older child inthe past and has engaged inthe abusive use of conflict." Id. The court also found that Jimma's imputed monthly income was $3,569, upon which it calculated a monthly child support obligation of$524.90. Br. ofResp., Appx. 4. Because these findings are verities on appeal, ourreview is then limited to
a determination ofwhetherthe findings supportthe orders andjudgmententered 

### bythe trial court. Chace v. Kelsall. 72 Wn.2d 984, 987-88, 435 P.2d 643 (1967). The trial court has broad discretion to fashion the residential provisions for the 

### parenting plan, considering the statutoryfactors and the child's best interest.
9No. 74101-2-1/10 RCW 26.09.187; In re Marriage of Jacobson, 90 Wn. App. 738, 743, 954 P.2d 297 (1998). Child support orders are also reviewed for an abuse ofdiscretion. In

re Marriage of(Griffin) Booth, 114 Wn.2d 772, 776, 791 P.2d 519 (1990). Discretion is abused only when a decision is manifestly unreasonable or based


### on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. Inre Marriage ofKovacs, 121 Wn.2d 795, 801, 854 P.2d 629 (1993). 

### Instead of claiming thatthe trialcourt's factual findings do not supportits conclusions of law, Jimma presents an alternative version ofthe facts. He urges 

### this court to reweigh the evidence and find in his favor. But we do not weigh 

### evidence on appeal. In re Welfare ofA.W., 182Wn.2d 689, 711, 344 P.3d 1186 

### (2015). We defer to thetrial court's determinations on the persuasiveness of the evidence, witness credibility, and conflicting testimony. In re Dependency ofK.R., 128Wn.2d 129, 144, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995). "Even where the evidence conflicts,


### a reviewing court must determine onlywhether the evidence most favorable to 

### the prevailing party supports the challengedfindings." State v. Black. 100Wn.2d 793, 802, 676 P.2d 963 (1984). We hold that the trialcourt's findings of fact are 

### verities on appeal. Thetrial court did notabuse its discretion when, based on its 

### findings offact, itentered the judgmentand orderdetermining parentage and granting additional relief, thefinal parentingplan, thefinal order ofchild support and worksheets, and the restraining order.

10No. 74101-2-1/11
Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

11