In re Custody of Halls
Washington Court of Appeals
109 P.3d 15 (2005)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
June Arden (defendant) and Jeffrey Halls (plaintiff) were married and had three children in Washington. Arden and Halls divorced, and the trial court entered a parenting plan (original parenting plan), under which the children would primarily live with Arden, but would live with Halls during certain weekends. Arden was evicted from her home and moved with the children to Minnesota. As a result, Arden failed to deliver the children to Halls’s residence as scheduled. Halls filed a motion for a contempt order. The trial court found Arden in contempt of the original parenting plan. At a show-cause hearing, the trial court granted Halls sole custody of the children. At a subsequent review hearing, Halls’s lawyer asked the court to enter a new parenting plan “that reflects what’s going on now.” Halls had not formally petitioned for a modification of the original parenting plan. The trial court entered an order with a modified parenting plan (first modified parenting plan). Arden appealed, and at this point, Halls formally filed a petition to modify the original parenting plan. Halls also filed a motion to find Arden in contempt of the first modified parenting plan, because Arden had again failed to bring the children back to Halls on time. The trial court found Arden in contempt for a second time and, on Halls’s motion, entered an order with another new parenting plan. Arden appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Armstrong, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.