## Facts

- A final parenting plan entered February 4, 2003 made the mother (June Arden) the primary residential parent; the father (Jeffrey C. Halls, Sr.) had defined residential time and the parties shared joint decision-making.
- In April 2003, after eviction, Arden moved with the children to Minnesota without providing required notice and did not produce the children for Halls’s next scheduled residential time.
- Halls sought contempt sanctions; at a May 9, 2003 contempt hearing Arden appeared pro se by telephone, and the court found contempt and ordered her jailed.
- In subsequent contempt/show-cause and review proceedings, the trial court went beyond enforcement and awarded Halls sole custody and entered a modified permanent parenting plan without first requiring the statutory modification process.
- After Arden appealed, Halls filed a formal petition to modify; the trial court later entered a second permanent modified parenting plan, additional contempt findings (again with incarceration exposure while Arden was unrepresented), and a 10-year temporary restraining order against Arden.
- Arden appealed the custody modifications, the contempt orders entered without appointed counsel, and the long-term restraining order.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court complied with RCW 26.09.260’s required procedures and thresholds before entering major permanent parenting-plan modifications awarding sole custody to the father.
2. Whether due process required appointment of counsel for Arden in contempt proceedings where incarceration was a possible sanction.
3. What appellate relief was appropriate regarding the restraining order and Arden’s request for a prospective order requiring counsel in future modification proceedings.

## Decision

- The court reversed both permanent parenting-plan modifications awarding Halls sole custody because the statutory modification procedure was not followed.
- The court vacated the contempt orders and remanded because Arden faced possible incarceration without appointed counsel, violating due process.
- The court declined to grant Arden’s request for an order requiring appointment of counsel in future modification proceedings.
- The court’s disposition left further custody, contempt, and related orders to be addressed on remand under the proper statutory and constitutional requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Major modification of a permanent parenting plan, including changing the primary residential parent, requires compliance with RCW 26.09.260’s procedural and substantive requirements; custody cannot be effectively altered through contempt or review proceedings.
- Contempt proceedings that may result in incarceration require due process protections, including appointed counsel for an indigent contemnor.
- Courts must keep parenting-plan enforcement (contempt) distinct from parenting-plan modification; enforcement remedies cannot substitute for the statutory modification process.

## Conclusion

The appellate court set aside the father’s sole-custody modifications because they were entered without the required statutory modification process, and it vacated contempt orders because the mother was exposed to incarceration without appointed counsel; the matter was remanded for proceedings consistent with RCW 26.09.260 and constitutional due process.


In re Custody of Halls, 126 Wn. App. 599, 109 P.3d 15 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)