IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of the Marriage of

FRANCIS GREGORY WILDER,

Appellant,

and

SHEILA ANN WILDER,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 35396-6-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PENNELL, A.C.J. — Francis Gregory Wilder appeals a superior court order 

modifying Sheila Ann Wilder’s obligations to provide postsecondary educational support

for their son. We affirm.

FACTS

The facts relevant to this appeal began in March 2016 when Mr. Wilder filed a 

petition for modification of child support. Ms. Wilder did not appear or respond to the

petition, resulting in entry through default of a modified order of child support. Relevant 

FILED

AUGUST 14, 2018

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 35396-6-III

In re Marriage of Wilder

2

here, the order required Ms. Wilder to pay for postsecondary educational support for the 

parties’ son and 52 percent of their son’s uncovered medical expenses, while also 

maintaining a life insurance policy. The order reserved a right for either party to petition 

for modification, provided the parties’ son remained enrolled full time in school until he 

reached 24 years of age.

In December 2016, Ms. Wilder filed a motion to adjust the child support order, 

requesting a reduction in her support obligations and other changes.

1

 In a supporting 

declaration, Ms. Wilder explained her current financial situation, the child’s needs and 

ability to pay his own expenses, and her expectations as to how the child’s college 

education would be funded. Mr. Wilder filed a substantive response to Ms. Wilder’s 

petition, along with a motion to dismiss. Mr. Wilder’s request for dismissal was based 

on RCW 26.09.170(5) (modifications to child support orders must be based upon a 

substantial change in circumstances).

The trial court granted Ms. Wilder a reduction in her support obligations. The 

court quickly dispensed with Mr. Wilder’s dismissal motion, as the May 2016 order of 

child support obtained through default had permitted modifications. The court also 

 

1 Ms. Wilder refiled her motion and titled it as a “motion to modify the amount of 

court ordered post secondary support which s [sic] set as child support currently by an 

order of child support.” Clerk’s Papers at 86.
No. 35396-6-III

In re Marriage of Wilder

3

considered the parties’ financial information and expectations regarding their son’s 

college education. The court ultimately lowered Ms. Wilder’s monthly postsecondary

support payment from $594 to $375 per month beginning in June 2017. It also relieved 

Ms. Wilder of any obligation to pay uncovered medical expenses or maintain life 

insurance, and directed that all future postsecondary support payments should be made 

directly to the parties’ son. Mr. Wilder’s motion for reconsideration was denied without 

oral argument. Mr. Wilder appeals.

ANALYSIS

Trial courts enjoy broad discretion over whether to order postsecondary 

educational support for dependent children. RCW 26.19.090(2). Factors to be considered

in exercising this discretion include, but are not limited to:

[a]ge of the child; the child’s needs; the expectations of the parties for their 

children when the parents were together; the child’s prospects, desires, 

aptitudes, abilities or disabilities; the nature of the postsecondary education 

sought; and the parents’ level of education, standard of living, and current 

and future resources. Also to be considered are the amount and type of 

support that the child would have been afforded if the parents had stayed 

together.

Id. As long as the court considers the foregoing statutory factors, it does not abuse its 

discretion. In re Parentage of Goude, 152 Wn. App. 784, 791, 219 P.3d 717 (2009). 
No. 35396-6-III

In re Marriage of Wilder

4

No written findings of fact or conclusions of law are required. In re Marriage of Morris, 

176 Wn. App. 893, 906, 309 P.3d 767 (2013).

The trial court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors. The court 

explicitly considered financial declarations from both parties, along with Ms. Wilder’s 

education and the education of her two other children. The court also listened to the 

parties’ presentations regarding the educational plans for their son, the aptitudes of their 

son, and the anticipated educational expenses and ability to pay by their son. Contrary to 

Mr. Wilder’s assertions, the trial court was not required to follow child support 

worksheets in reaching its support decision. RCW 26.19.090(1).

2

Mr. Wilder alleges the trial court exhibited improper bias against postsecondary 

educational support. We disagree. In issuing its ruling, the trial court noted the 

differences between basic child support and postsecondary educational support. The 

court voiced respect for parental autonomy in making decisions about postsecondary

educational support and noted that court involvement in postsecondary educational

 

2 Unlike In re Marriage of Newell, 117 Wn. App. 711, 72 P.3d 1130 (2003), there 

is no allegation that the trial court failed to accurately recognize each parent’s monthly 

income and proportional shares, as contemplated by the child support schedule. Mr. 

Wilder included a child support schedule with his materials to the court. Ms. Wilder did 

not contest the accuracy of Mr. Wilder’s proposed schedule. Instead, she requested that 

her payments be set below the advisory schedule.
No. 35396-6-III

In re Marriage of Wilder

5

support decisions should be handled with care. Nevertheless, the court did not eliminate 

Ms. Wilder’s support obligation. Nor did the court grant Ms. Wilder the full amount of 

her requested reduction.

3

 Instead, the court ordered a partial reduction of Ms. Wilder’s 

support obligation, based on her showing of need. The court also directed that Ms. 

Wilder’s new support obligations not take effect until the close of the academic year, 

thereby reducing the hardship to Mr. Wilder and the parties’ son. In making these 

determinations, the court followed the applicable statutory procedure, as set forth above.4

Mr. Wilder appears to advance several additional arguments regarding the trial 

court’s orders. He asserts that he has been denied due process, that the trial court should 

not have considered Ms. Wilder’s motion, and that the trial court erroneously eliminated 

the requirements that Ms. Wilder carry health insurance and cover medical expenses. 

We discern no obvious error in the trial court’s proceedings or rulings. Because Mr. 

Wilder does not develop these arguments in his briefing, we decline further review. 

RAP 10.3(a)(6).

 

3 Ms. Wilder requested that her support obligation be reduced to $250 per month. 

Mr. Wilder claimed that, under the child support worksheets, Ms. Wilder’s monthly 

current support payment should be $443. The trial court ultimately imposed a monthly 

payment obligation of $375 per month.

4 The trial court acted within its discretion in directing that support payments be 

made directly to the parties’ son. RCW 26.19.090(6).
No. 35396-6-III 

In re Marriage of Wilder 

CONCLUSION 

The trial court's order on postsecondary educational payments is affirmed. Each 

party shall bear its own fees on appeal. 

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. 

Pennell, A.CJ. 

WE CONCUR: 

6