## Facts

- Tracy A. Magnuson (a surgeon) and Robert S. “Robbie” Magnuson (an attorney) married in 1985 and had two children (born 1991 and 1998).
- The family functioned as a dual‑career household that often relied on nannies and other help because both parents had demanding schedules.
- Robbie told Tracy she would transition from male to female. Robbie took a leave of absence from work and later resigned.
- In October 2004, the parties separated, and Tracy filed a dissolution action.
- A guardian ad litem (GAL) and other evidence addressed the children’s circumstances during the separation and transition. The GAL indicated the effect of Robbie’s planned sex reassignment surgery on the children was unknown, but there was also evidence the children were currently uncomfortable and nervous.
- After an eight‑day trial, the superior court entered detailed findings and a parenting plan.
- The trial court found both parents were good and loving; the children’s relationships with each parent were approximately equal; and neither parent could fairly claim to have been the historical primary parent.
- The court found both parents engaged in conduct that harmed the children’s stability. The court cited, among other things, Tracy’s denigrating comments about Robbie in front of the children.
- The court also cited an incident at the younger child’s school in which Robbie pushed aside the child’s maternal grandmother and grabbed the child, alarming observers and causing a severe emotional reaction.
- The court noted Robbie’s anticipated sex reassignment surgery and found its effect on the children was unknown, while also finding Tracy’s continued employment and day‑to‑day functioning provided more stability during a period of major family change.
- The court awarded Tracy primary residential placement and awarded Robbie residential time under the plan. Robbie appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court improperly relied on Robbie’s transgender status and anticipated sex reassignment surgery when awarding Tracy primary residential placement.
2. Whether the trial court failed to properly consider and apply the residential‑provisions factors in RCW 26.09.187(3)(a).
3. Whether the parenting plan improperly restricted Robbie’s parental rights and residential time.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, affirmed the parenting plan.
- The court held the trial court’s residential‑placement decision was based on the children’s needs—especially stability and the children’s demonstrated reactions to events—rather than on Robbie’s transgender status itself.
- The court concluded the trial court’s findings and reasoning reflected consideration of RCW 26.09.187(3)(a), including the parents’ relationships with the children, each parent’s parenting functions, and the children’s emotional needs during a time of upheaval.
- The court rejected the argument that the plan unlawfully restricted Robbie’s parental rights, holding the residential schedule was within the trial court’s broad discretion and was supported by the record.
- Applying abuse‑of‑discretion review, the court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s residential placement determination.

## Legal Principles

- Parenting plans and residential provisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an appellate court will not reverse unless the decision rests on untenable grounds or reasons or is manifestly unreasonable.
- A parent’s transgender status (like a parent’s sexual orientation in earlier Washington custody cases) is not, by itself, a lawful basis to deny or limit residential placement; the controlling question is the child’s best interests.
- A trial court may consider a parent’s transition and planned medical treatment only to the extent the evidence connects those circumstances to likely or actual effects on the child’s welfare (including the child’s emotional security and stability).
- In applying RCW 26.09.187(3)(a), the court may weigh evidence that both parents contribute to instability and may select the placement arrangement that better protects the child’s continuity and emotional needs.
- Written findings need not mirror the statute word‑for‑word; it is enough that the findings and record show reasoned consideration of the statutory residential factors.
- Courts have wide discretion to set residential time so long as the plan is tied to the child’s welfare rather than disapproval of a parent’s identity.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the parenting plan awarding Tracy primary residential placement because the trial court evaluated the statutory best‑interests factors and based its decision on the children’s need for stability and the evidence of their current distress during family change, not on Robbie’s transgender status as a status-based reason to limit parenting time.


Magnuson v. Magnuson, 170 P.3d 65, 141 Wash. App. 347 (2007)