Court Opinion

ID: 9898509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:31:11.260164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:20.290224
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 In the Matter of the Marriage of:
                                                           DIVISION ONE
 HECTOR MONTALVO,
                                                           No. 83737-1-I
                         Appellant,
                                                           UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                and

 VICTORIA MONTALVO,

                         Respondent.

       DWYER, J. — Hector Montalvo challenges the trial court’s finding that he

has a history of domestic violence and the parenting plan requirement that he

obtain a psychological evaluation. Additionally, Hector1 challenges the trial

court’s award of spousal maintenance to Victoria for a period of 10 years.

Finding no error, we affirm.

                                                 I

       Hector and Victoria Montalvo were married on April 3, 1995 in Houston,

Texas. They relocated to Seattle in 2004. The parties had four children, Asis,

Emanuel, J.M., and A.M. J.M., who was 23 years old at the time of trial, has

autism and severe anxiety, which prevent him from being able to live

independently. A.M., who is still a minor child, also has autism and additionally

suffers from juvenile arthritis. A.M. and J.M. are both dependent on Victoria for

       1 We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid confusion.   No disrespect is
intended.
No. 83737-1-I/2

their financial and medical needs. Due to A.M. and J.M.’s limitations and their

frequent medical appointments, Victoria did not work outside the home.

       The parties separated on March 20, 2013. Hector petitioned for

dissolution in December 2020. After Hector moved for default, Victoria

responded to the petition and requested that a protection order be entered on her

behalf.

       A bench trial was conducted remotely via Zoom on January 10 and 28,

2022. Both parties appeared pro se. The only testifying witnesses were the

parties themselves.

       The trial court entered its findings and conclusions about a marriage, final

child support order, and final parenting plan on February 2, 2022. In its findings

and conclusions, the trial court found that the parties’ community property

consisted of two lots of real property in Mexico, three vehicles, and the various

furnishings, fixtures, appliances, and electronics located at both of the parties’

residences. The trial court found that neither party possessed any separate

personal property.

       The court awarded spousal maintenance to Victoria in the amount of

$1,300 per month, payable until January 2032. As explained in its findings of

fact, this was because

       The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, there is
       little to [no] separate or community property available to be
       apportioned to her, nor ability to meet her needs independently.
       Although child support is sought the parties have two children (ages
       13 and 23) who are both autistic and still live at home with their
       mother. The youngest child’s condition is more severe, and he has
       also been diagnosed with juvenile arthritis. Prior to COVID the

                                          2
No. 83737-1-I/3

      mother was typically taking the children to seven different
      appointments every week, addressing counseling, behavioral
      treatment, feeding therapy and medical appointments with a
      rheumatologist. The mother has been a stay-at-home parent and
      needs to acquire sufficient education or training (while paying for
      childcare) to enable her to secure employment appropriate to her
      skill, interests, style of life, and other attendant circumstances. The
      standard of living during the marriage supports awarding
      maintenance.

Finding of Fact 13.

      The trial court also granted Victoria’s request for a protection order, as it

found that Hector had a demonstrated history of domestic violence and multiple

violations of no-contact orders previously obtained by Victoria. Finding of Fact

15. The order was effective through February 4, 2023.

      The trial court additionally ruled that restrictions on Hector’s residential

time and decision making were warranted, due to its findings that Hector had

committed domestic violence, assault, and child abuse. Parenting Plan ¶¶ 3, 16.

Moreover, the trial court found that Hector had neglected his parental duties

towards A.M. and that it “suspect[s] that he has mental health problems.”

Parenting Plan ¶ 3. Accordingly, the trial court ordered that Hector have no

contact with A.M. and that he obtain a psychological evaluation and comply with

any recommended treatment.

      Hector timely appeals.

                                         II

      Hector asserts that the trial court erred by finding that he had a history of

domestic violence. This is so, he avers, because no acts of domestic violence

occurred in the seven years leading up to trial. Hector’s argument lacks merit.

                                         3
No. 83737-1-I/4

        We will not reverse a trial court’s findings of fact so long as they are

supported by substantial evidence. Petters v. Williamson & Assocs., Inc., 151

Wn. App. 154, 163, 210 P.3d 1048 (2009). “Substantial evidence is evidence in

sufficient quantum to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the declared

premise.” Holland v. Boeing Co., 90 Wn.2d 384, 390-91, 583 P.2d 621

(1978). On substantial evidence review, all evidence is construed in favor of the

prevailing party. Mangan v. Lamar, 18 Wn. App. 2d 93, 95, 496 P.3d 1213

(2021).

        Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Hector had a

history of domestic violence. Victoria previously obtained three separate

protection orders prohibiting Hector from contacting her, a fact which he does not

dispute. Additionally, Victoria testified that during the parties’ marriage, Hector

“would hit the kids and be angry with them because he would not tolerate their

behaviors,” prohibited her from entering the house, and threw objects such as a

pot of coins and hot dogs at her, among other acts of violence.

        That these incidents may have occurred multiple years prior to trial is

irrelevant for purposes of entering restrictions in the parenting plan.2 RCW

26.09.191 requires a trial court to allot decision making to one parent and limit a

parent’s residential time if it finds that the parent has “a history of acts of

        2 Hector also asserts that the court’s allegedly erroneous findings of fact do not support

the imposition of a protection order prohibiting him from contacting Victoria. However, Hector did
not assign error to any provisions of the protection order and his argument is entirely focused on
the parenting plan. We will not consider arguments that are undeveloped. Smith v. King, 106
Wn.2d 443, 451-52, 722 P.2d 796 (1986).

                                                 4
No. 83737-1-I/5

domestic violence as defined in RCW 7.105.010.”3 RCW 26.09.191(1), (2)(a)(iii).

The only exception to this rule occurs when the trial court “expressly finds based

on the evidence that contact between the parent and the child will not cause

physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm to the child and that the probability

that the parent’s or other person’s harmful or abusive conduct will recur is so

remote that it would not be in the child’s best interests to apply” any restrictions

on the parent’s residential time. RCW 26.09.191(2)(n).

        We recently held that given the use of the word “shall” in RCW

26.09.191(1) and (2), the trial court did not have discretion to decline to enter

restrictions against a parent with a history of domestic violence, regardless of

how remote in time the domestic violence may have occurred. In re Parenting

and Support of C.A.S., 25 Wn. App. 2d 21, 30, 522 P.3d 75 (2022). Therein, the

father had not been convicted of a crime of domestic violence in the 11 years

prior to trial, and “there was no credible evidence” that the father had engaged in

domestic violence during that time. C.A.S., 25 Wn. App. 2d at 30. Nonetheless,

we held that the trial court’s decision to decline to enter a factual finding that the

father had a history of domestic violence constituted an abuse of discretion, as

such a finding was mandatory in light of the evidence that the father had been

convicted of multiple domestic violence offenses. C.A.S., 25 Wn. App. 2d at 30.

        3 RCW 7.105.010(9) defines domestic violence as “[p]hysical harm, bodily injury, assault,

or the infliction of fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault; nonconsensual sexual conduct
or nonconsensual sexual penetration; coercive control; unlawful harassment; or stalking” of one
household member or intimate partner by another.

                                                 5
No. 83737-1-I/6

       Hector’s argument fails for the same reason that the argument failed in

C.A.S. The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Hector had three

domestic violence protection orders entered against him and had previously

committed acts of domestic violence against Victoria, neither of which Hector

disputed. The trial court properly entered a finding that Hector had a history of

domestic violence. In turn, the court was required to award sole decision making

to Victoria and to restrict Hector’s residential time in the absence of any express

findings that contact between Hector and A.M. would be in the child’s best

interests. The trial court therefore did not err.

                                          III

       Hector next asserts that the trial court erred by ordering him to undergo a

psychological evaluation as part of the parenting plan. This is so, he asserts,

because the trial court’s finding that he may have mental health problems is not

supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

       “Generally, a trial court’s rulings dealing with the provisions of a parenting

plan are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133

Wn.2d 39, 46, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997). “A trial court abuses its discretion if its

decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or untenable

reasons.” Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d at 46-47.

       The trial court’s order that Hector obtain a psychological evaluation in

order to resume contact with his one minor child was based on its finding that it

“suspect[s] that he has mental health problems.” This finding was supported by

substantial evidence. At trial, Victoria testified that Hector “claims that he is the

                                           6
No. 83737-1-I/7

savior, he is the one that the world has been awaiting. He is like a Buddha. He

will save human kinds.” Victoria also testified that Hector did not understand

what a no-contact order is, even after his children tried explaining it to him.

Although Hector argues that this testimony was not credible, the trial court found

that it was. We will not disturb the trial court’s determinations of credibility. See

Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., 182 Wn. App. 733, 741, 332 P.3d 1006 (2014).

        Additionally, the trial court witnessed Hector’s possible mental health

issues first-hand. Throughout trial, Hector appeared to be unable to understand

that he was the one who petitioned for dissolution. For example, when the trial

court asked why Hector had not completed the family court services

questionnaire, Hector responded that he “didn’t know what all of this was about”

and that he did not know “how to respond to all these charges.” As another

example, on the second trial day, Victoria asked Hector “what are his

responsibilities as a father of two children with disability?” Hector responded to

this question by testifying that “I would help and I try to help her in every way I

could within my power with the hopes that maybe someday we could get back

together for the benefit of the children.”

        Victoria’s testimony, together with Hector’s inability to understand his own

dissolution, support the trial court’s finding that Hector may have mental health

problems. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by requiring Hector to obtain a

psychological evaluation as a prerequisite to reestablishing contact with A.M.4

        4 Importantly, the trial court did not find that Hector had a mental health problem.   Rather,
it found that it suspected that he did and ordered an evaluation based on that concern.

                                                 7
No. 83737-1-I/8

                                                IV

       Hector further contends that the trial court erred by awarding spousal

maintenance to Victoria for a period of 10 years.5 This is so, he asserts, because

the trial court failed to consider the parties’ ages, the length of time of the order,

or Victoria’s ability to obtain a job. The record demonstrates otherwise.

       We review a trial court’s award of spousal maintenance for abuse of

discretion. In re Marriage of Bulicek, 59 Wn. App. 630, 633, 800 P.2d 394

(1990). “The only limitation on amount and duration of maintenance under RCW

26.09.090 is that, in light of the relevant factors, the award must be just.”

Bulicek, 59 Wn. App. at 633 (citing In re Marriage of Morrow, 53 Wn. App. 579,

585, 770 P.2d 197 (1989)).

       RCW 26.09.090 lists the factors that the trial court should consider when

deciding whether to award spousal maintenance to one of the parties. These

factors include, but are not limited to:

              (a) The financial resources of the party seeking
       maintenance, including separate or community property
       apportioned to him or her, and his or her ability to meet his or her
       needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for
       support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party;
              (b) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or
       training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find
       employment appropriate to his or her skill, interests, style of life,
       and other attendant circumstances;
              (c) The standard of living established during the marriage or
       domestic partnership;

       5 Hector’s brief also assigns error to the trial court’s division of community property.

However, Hector does not make any argument with respect to this claim of error. We therefore
treat this assignment of error as waived. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d
801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992).

                                                 8
No. 83737-1-I/9

             (d) The duration of the marriage or domestic partnership;
             (e) The age, physical and emotional condition, and financial
      obligations of the spouse or domestic partner seeking maintenance;
      and
             (f) The ability of the spouse or domestic partner from whom
      maintenance is sought to meet his or her needs and financial
      obligations while meeting those of the spouse or domestic partner
      seeking maintenance.

RCW 26.09.090(1). However, “‘[n]othing in RCW 26.09.060 requires the trial

court to make specific factual findings on each of the factors listed in RCW

26.09.090(1). The statute merely requires the court to consider the listed

factors.’” In re Marriage of Condie, 15 Wn. App. 2d 449, 470, 475 P.3d 993

(2020) (quoting In re Marriage of Mansour, 126 Wn. App. 1, 16, 106 P.3d 768

(2004)).

      The record here establishes that the trial court considered all of the factors

enumerated in RCW 26.09.090. In its findings of fact, the trial court found that

the parties had little to no separate or community property available to be

apportioned. Finding of Fact 13. Although the trial court did award child support

to Victoria, the court recognized that the amount of child support might not be

sufficient to meet the children’s medical needs, which were significant. Finding of

Fact 13. As the trial court noted, “[p]rior to COVID the mother was typically

taking the children to seven different appointments every week.” Finding of Fact

13. In addition to the cost of the children’s medical treatment, the amount of

appointments hindered Victoria’s ability to work, and she had been a stay-at-

home parent for a substantial amount of time. Finding of Fact 13. Victoria’s lack

of work experience rendered it necessary for her to obtain education or training,

which she cannot obtain without paying for childcare. Finding of Fact 13.

                                         9
No. 83737-1-I/10

       Additionally, the trial court found that the parties had a long-term marriage

that lasted for 26 years. Finding of Fact 13. The trial court found that Victoria

was 51 years old at the time of trial and had recently started seeing a cardiologist

for heart issues. Finding of Fact 13. The trial court also found that Hector had

the ability to pay, given his gross earnings of approximately $99,000 per year.

Findings of Fact 13, 22. These factual findings by the trial court, none of which

Hector assigns error to,6 demonstrate that it considered all of the factors

enumerated in RCW 26.09.090.

       Contrary to Hector’s assertion, an award of spousal maintenance does not

constitute an abuse of discretion solely due to the length of time the award is in

effect. In re Marriage of Leaver, 20 Wn. App. 2d 228, 241, 499 P.3d 222 (2021).

Rather, what is a reasonable length of time for a party to receive maintenance is

wholly dependent on the facts of the case. In re Marriage of Spreen, 107 Wn.

App. 341, 348, 28 P.3d 769 (2001).

       Here, the trial court’s award of spousal maintenance in the amount of

$1,300 per month for 10 years was not an abuse of discretion in light of the

evidence presented. As Victoria testified, her only source of income since March

2013 was the $1,400 per month that Hector was paying her. This was because a

significant amount of her time was spent taking J.M. and A.M. to medical

appointments, some of which lasted two hours every day. Victoria was also

required to constantly supervise A.M. while school was remote, due to A.M.’s

       6 “Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal.”   Rush v. Blackburn, 190 Wn. App.
945, 956, 361 P.3d 217 (2015).

                                               10
No. 83737-1-I/11

“explosive, aggressive outbursts.” She has had no assistance from family

members, as they all live in either Texas or Mexico. All of these factors made

caring for J.M. and A.M. the equivalent of a full-time job.

        Because J.M. and A.M.’s medical needs are ongoing, Victoria’s ability to

obtain the education or training necessary to obtain a job that offers her the

necessary flexibility is limited. Furthermore, although A.M. will have reached the

age of majority before 2032, the need for Victoria to care for him is likely to last

well into his adulthood.7 The workable solution that the parties had come to on

their own for the nine years prior to trial was for Hector to pay Victoria $1,400 per

month. The amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court was $100 less

than that. As Victoria’s ability to obtain employment is hindered by the long-term

medical needs of her sons, we cannot say that an award of maintenance for 10

years in the amount of $1,300 was unreasonable or unjust. The trial court did not

abuse its discretion.

                                                  V

        Victoria requests an award of attorney fees on two bases. Victoria first

requests fees pursuant to RCW 7.105.310(1)(j). This statute permits the court to

award costs, including attorney fees, “to reimburse the petitioner for costs

incurred in bringing the action.” RCW 7.105.310(1)(j). “The action” referenced in

the statute is the cause of action seeking a domestic violence protection order.

Although Hector initiated the dissolution action, it was Victoria who initiated the

        7 As the trial court found, J.M. was still dependent on Victoria at the age of 23.   A.M.’s
autism is more severe than J.M.’s and A.M. additionally suffers from juvenile arthritis.

                                                 11
No. 83737-1-I/12

action referred to in RCW 7.105.310. Accordingly, we grant her request for an

award of attorney fees, although our grant is limited to those fees incurred for

work within the ambit of RCW 7.105.310 and where the legal work at issue took

place after July 1, 2022, the effective date of the statute. Upon proper

application, a commissioner of our court will enter an appropriate order.

       Second, Victoria requests an award of attorney fees pursuant to RAP

18.9(a) because, she asserts, Hector’s appeal was frivolous. “This court may

award attorney fees to a party if the opposing party’s appeal is frivolous.” Childs

v. Allen, 125 Wn. App. 50, 58, 105 P.3d 411 (2004). However, an appeal is only

frivolous if it “presents no debatable issues and is so devoid of merit that there is

no reasonable possibility of reversal.” Streater v. White, 26 Wn. App. 430, 434,

613 P.2d 187 (1980).

       Although we affirm the decision of the trial court, we cannot say that

Hector’s appeal was so totally devoid of merit as to be frivolous. Hector

presented at least one debatable issue in challenging the length of the trial

court’s award of spousal maintenance. Accordingly, we decline to award

attorney fees to Victoria on this basis.

       Affirmed.

                                           12
No. 83737-1-I/13

WE CONCUR:

                   13