Please Interpret Local Court Rule (95)

[Fobbed-Fodder]

Hi Soc,

I have included Local Court RULE (95) MANDATORY PARENTING SEMINARS below in its entirety.

Facts:

Dissolution with children;

I am the petitioner and have complied with this court rule in its entirety;

Respondent has not;

No Special Considerations or Waiver presented or given;

We had a trial and tomorrow we go before the Judge to hear his oral ruling on all matters.


Questions:

1.)    Can you please give me your take on how a court may interpret this Local court rule, specifically the part that reads,
("however, Respondent will not be allowed to seek affirmative relief in this or subsequent proceedings, except certain Temporary Orders, on parenting issues until the seminar has been successfully completed.")


2.)   How would you use this to your advantage?

3.)   Could it be used at the time of ruling in any favorable way if that ruling does not go my way?

3.)   Would it be a good argument in a reply to a motion for reconsideration, mainly to preclude that motion from preceding should things go my way?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RULE (95) MANDATORY PARENTING SEMINARS


     (A)  Definition of Applicable Cases.  This rule applies to all cases filed under Ch. 26.09 or Ch. 26.26 of the RCW filed after January 1, 1996, including dissolutions, legal separations, major modifications and paternity actions (in which paternity has been established) where the parties are parents of children under the age of 18, and where a parenting plan or residential plan is required which involves more than purely financial issues.

     (B)  Parenting Seminars; Mandatory Attendance.  In all cases referred to in Section (A) above, and in those additional cases arising under Title 26 RCW where a court makes a discretionary finding that a parenting seminar would be in the best interest of the children, both parents, and such non parent parties as the court may direct, shall participate in, and successfully complete, an approved parenting seminar.  Standards for an approved parenting seminar shall be established by Administrative Order of this court.  Successful completion shall be evidenced by a certificate of attendance filed by the provider agency with the court.

     (C)  Special Considerations/Waiver.

          (1)  In no case shall opposing parties be required to attend a seminar together.

(2)  Upon a showing of domestic violence or abuse which would not require mutual decision making pursuant to RCW 26.09.191,or that a parent's attendance at a seminar is not in the children's best interest, the court shall either:

               (a)  waive the requirement of completion of the seminar; or
               (b)  provide an alternative voluntary parenting seminar for battered spouses.

          (3)  The Court may waive the seminar requirement for one or both parents in any case for good cause shown.

     (D)  Failure to Comply.  Nonparticipation, or default, by one parent does not excuse participation by the other parent.  Respondent's refusal, delay or default will not delay the progress of the case to a final decree; however, Respondent will not be allowed to seek affirmative relief in this or subsequent proceedings, except certain Temporary Orders, on parenting issues until the seminar has been successfully completed.  Petitioner's refusal or delay will prevent the case from being tried or any final order affecting the parenting/residential plan being entered in Petitioner's favor.  Willful refusal or delay by either parent may constitute contempt of court and result in sanctions imposed by the court or may result in the imposition of monetary terms, default and/or striking of pleadings.

     (E)  Petitioners in all applicable cases as defined in subsection (A) above shall serve a notice as provided by the Clerk's Office upon Respondents notifying them of the requirements of this court rule.  The notice shall be served with the initial pleadings.

(Adopted effective January 1, 1996.)


Thanks Soc

[socrateaser]

>Questions:
>
>1.)    Can you please give me your take on how a court may
>interpret this Local court rule, specifically the part that
>reads, ("however, Respondent will not be allowed to seek affirmative
>relief in this or subsequent proceedings, except certain
>Temporary Orders, on parenting issues until the seminar has
>been successfully completed.")

First, understand that if you didn't raise the issue during trial, then the court has no obligation to consider it in its ruling. And, you will not be permitted to raise the issue when the court rules, so, you're probably wasting your time, although you can raise it later if the other parent brings some new post judgment action.
>
>
>2.)   How would you use this to your advantage?

Well, at trial I would have submitted the failure of the mother to attend the parenting seminar as evidence to show that she believes that she has no real duty to cooperate with you in parenting the child, and, therefore, that you should be awarded primary custody.

But, as I am fond of saying, "shoulda woulda coulda," used in the past tense, should be outlawed from the English language, because they are all words that indicate a failure to act affirmatively in one's own interest, and they do nothing more than transfer blame into space, where it does no good.
>
>3.)   Could it be used at the time of ruling in any favorable
>way if that ruling does not go my way?

Nope.

>
>3.)   Would it be a good argument in a reply to a motion for
>reconsideration, mainly to preclude that motion from preceding
>should things go my way?

YES, absolutely. Here, you have a case, and you can raise my above-stated argument, that the mother really doesn't give a rip about you or our relationship with the child, or cooperating with you or facilitating your relationship.

[Fobbed-Fodder]

Thanks Soc

The issue was raised by my attorney and respondent admitted that she did not attend the court sanctioned parenting seminar, so that issue is on the record.

I guess Ill wait and see what happens tomorrow and ask you more on this subject latter if needed, unless of course you have any other recommendations.

[4honor]

WA recently clarified in a published opinion that RCW REQUIRES the  losing party in a contempt matter to pay the other party's attorney's fees (if they are asked for), and for a minimum of $100 fine from the person found in contempt.

Came out last week. I wil look for the cite.