## Facts

- John E. Kovacs and Marcia Jean Kovacs married in 1982 and had three minor children.
- During the marriage, Marcia was generally the at-home parent while John worked outside the home.
- After financial problems and relocation, the parties separated and a dissolution action proceeded for about 18 months.
- While serving as temporary residential custodian during the dissolution, Marcia repeatedly left the children with relatives to visit a new boyfriend.
- Marcia received two alcohol-related driving citations and was arrested for DUI after an accident when the children were in the car.
- A psychologist evaluated both parents, found John more stable and better able to provide structure, and recommended primary residential placement with John.
- The trial court awarded primary residential care to John, and the children moved to his home in California.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, effectively requiring designation of the historical primary caregiver absent proof that the caregiver’s conduct caused emotional, physical, or psychological harm.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington’s parenting plan statute creates a presumption favoring the historical primary caregiver unless that parent’s conduct has caused actual harm to the children.
2. Whether the trial court may award primary residential care to the non-primary-caregiver parent based on a multi-factor best-interests analysis without an “actual harm” threshold.
3. What level of appellate deference applies to a trial court’s residential placement decision under the statutory scheme.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s parenting plan awarding primary residential care to John.
- The court held that the statute does not create a presumption in favor of the historical primary caregiver.
- The court rejected an “actual harm” requirement as inconsistent with the statutory best-interests standard.
- The court concluded the trial court properly weighed the statutory factors and did not abuse its discretion in finding placement with John served the children’s best interests.

## Legal Principles

- Residential placement in a dissolution parenting plan must be based on the child’s best interests using the statute’s enumerated, multi-factor framework.
- No single statutory factor is controlling; courts may not elevate historical primary caregiving into a presumption that governs residential placement.
- A court may consider instability and risk-related conduct when determining best interests; the statute does not require proof of realized emotional, physical, or psychological harm before acting.
- Appellate review of residential placement is deferential; absent misapplication of the statutory standard or abuse of discretion, the trial court’s decision stands.

## Conclusion

Washington law requires a fact-driven, multi-factor best-interests determination for residential placement, without a presumption for the historical primary caregiver; applying that approach, the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s award of primary residential care to the father based on record-supported findings of comparative stability and parenting capacity.


In re Marriage of Kovacs, 121 Wash. 2d 795, 854 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1993)