Magnuson v. Magnuson
Washington Court of Appeals
170 P.3d 65, 141 Wash. App. 347 (2007)
- Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD
Facts
Robbie and Tracy Magnuson were married with two children. Robbie informed Tracy that Robbie would be transitioning from male to female. Robbie took a leave of absence from work and ultimately resigned. In October 2004, Robbie and Tracy separated, and Tracy filed to dissolve the marriage. At trial, the guardian ad litem (GAL) presented evidence that the impact of Robbie’s sex reassignment surgery on the children was unknown. However, there was evidence of the children’s present uncomfortable and nervous behavior. The trial court found that both parents had approximately equal relationships with each child and that both parents acted in ways that adversely affected the children’s stability. For example, Tracy denigrated Robbie, and Robbie left her job. However, the court also found that Tracy maintained her career, providing stability for the children. The court granted primary residential placement of the children to Tracy and visitation to Robbie. Robbie appealed, alleging that the court had erred in rejecting the GAL’s recommendation that the impact of gender reassignment on children is unknown, failing to properly address the factors in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 26.09.187(3)(a) and restricting Robbie’s parental rights.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
Dissent (Kulik, J)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.