## Facts

- Sara Dixon Rideout and John Christopher Rideout divorced and were subject to a permanent parenting plan giving Sara primary residential placement and giving Christopher scheduled residential time, including four summer weeks.
- A court order required that their daughter, Caroline, begin summer residential time with Christopher on July 27, 2000.
- Sara did not deliver Caroline to Christopher on that date.
- Christopher initiated contempt proceedings, alleging interference with his ordered residential time.
- Sara offered Caroline’s written declaration stating she did not want to visit her father.
- A court commissioner found Sara had inappropriately involved Caroline in the dispute, influenced Caroline’s attitude toward visitation, and caused Caroline to write the declaration.
- The commissioner found Sara could have required Caroline to comply with the order but did not, and concluded Sara’s noncompliance was in bad faith.
- The superior court adopted the commissioner’s contempt ruling and awarded Christopher attorney’s fees and costs; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. When the evidence in a contempt proceeding is entirely documentary, must an appellate court still defer to the trial court’s factual findings and review them for substantial evidence?
2. Under RCW 26.09.160, may a parent be held in contempt for failing to make reasonable efforts to require a child to comply with ordered residential time, even if the child expresses a preference not to visit?

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the contempt order and the fee award.
- The Court held that trial-court findings in contempt proceedings receive deference and are reviewed for substantial evidence, even if based solely on documentary submissions.
- The Court held that RCW 26.09.160 permits contempt where a parent, acting in bad faith, fails to make reasonable efforts to ensure a child’s compliance with residential provisions in a parenting plan and related court orders.
- The Court accepted the commissioner’s findings that Sara’s conduct contributed to Caroline’s refusal and supported a bad-faith determination.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of factual findings in contempt proceedings is for substantial evidence, and deference is owed even when the record consists entirely of written materials.
- Under RCW 26.09.160, a parent’s obligation regarding court-ordered residential time includes making reasonable efforts to require the child’s compliance; passive noninterference may be insufficient.
- A child’s stated reluctance to visit does not, by itself, excuse a parent’s noncompliance with a residential-time order.
- Bad faith may be found where a parent fails to take reasonable steps to secure compliance and engages in conduct that contributes to or reinforces the child’s refusal.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed contempt sanctions against a primary residential parent who, in bad faith, failed to make reasonable efforts to enforce a residential-time order, and it reaffirmed that appellate courts defer to trial-court fact-finding under substantial-evidence review even on an entirely documentary record.


In re Marriage of Rideout, 150 Wash. 2d 337, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003)