In Re The Marriage Of: Karla Maia-hanson, Appellant V. Bradley Hanson, Respondent

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Marriage of
No. 70249-1-1 	— 	°
KARLA MAIA-HANSON,
Appellant,
and
BRADLEY HANSON,
Respondent.
Trickey, J. — This appeal arises from a dissolution action between KarIa
Maia-Hanson and Bradley Hanson.1 	KarIa seeks review of four posttrial orders,
which include and pertain to the trial court's order holding KarIa in contempt. 	But
because KarIa is no longer in contempt of court, the issues she presents as to
two orders on appeal are moot. 	The remaining orders from which KarIa seeks
review were not timely appealed. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
FACTS
Bradley and KarIa were married 	in 1999 and 	have two sons, A.H. and
P.H.2 	On October 30, 2009, KarIa filed a petition to dissolve the marriage.3 	On
November 19, 2009, the parties agreed to a temporary parenting plan.4
Throughout 	the 	dissolution 	action, 	KarIa 	instigated 	several
unsubstantiated allegations of domestic abuse against Bradley.5 	On June 18,
2010, Child Protective Services (CPS) received a report alleging that Bradley had
CO;
DIVISION ONE 	h 	™o
UNPUBLISHED OPINION 	° 	£-*r
FILED: June 30, 2014
1 For clarity, this opinion refers to both parties by their first names. 	No disrespect is
intended.
2 Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1-2.
3 CP at 1.
4 CP at 6.
5 See CP at 875-86, 949, 951.

No. 70249-1-1/2
abused his sons by kneeing, hitting, and squeezing them.6 CPS later concluded
that the information did not warrant an investigation.7 	On July 6, 2010, CPS
received a report from a psychologist who met with KarIa and one of her sons.8
The son claimed that Bradley had sexually abused him.9 	The police and CPS
once again concluded that the allegations were unfounded.10
On August 3, 2010, Dr. Jennifer Wheeler, the court-appointed parenting
evaluator, 	issued 	an 	addendum 	to 	a 	parenting 	evaluation 	report 	she 	had
previously issued on June 16, 2010.11 	Dr. Wheeler determined that Karla's
strong belief that Bradley was abusive would result in psychological harm to A.H.
and 	P.H.12 	Dr. 	Wheeler 	expressed 	concern 	that 	KarIa would 	raise 	new
allegations of abuse by Bradley to CPS or a mandated reporter, which would
disrupt Bradley's residential contact with his sons and expose them to further
psychological harm.13
August 2010 Order
Bradley moved to modify the parenting plan by adopting Dr. Wheeler's
recommendations.14 	On August 19, 2010, a court commissioner entered an
order denying the motion, but ordered, "If either parent has a concern that the
other parent is abusing the boys, it shall be reported only to the case manager
6 CP at 949.
7 CP at 949.
8 CP at 949.
9 See CP at 949.
10 CP at 949, 951.
11 CPat948.
12 CP at 949.
13 CP at 949.
14 CP at 1065.

No. 70249-1-1/3
who shall determine if it rises to the level that should be reported to CPS."15 The
commissioner appointed a case manager "for the purpose of addressing the
urgent concern identified &argued by the father of CPS reports."16
May 2011 Oral Rulings
On May 	31, 2011, 	following 	trial, 	the trial 	court made an 	oral 	ruling
regarding the parenting plan.17 	The trial court rejected Karla's request for RCW
26.09.191 	limitations 	on 	the 	parenting 	plan 	after 	finding 	that 	no 	evidence
supported her allegations of abuse by Bradley.18 	The court did not find Karla's
allegations credible.19
The trial court also reaffirmed its appointment of the case manager for the
narrow purpose of "deal[ing] with referrals to law enforcement or CPS."20 	The
court directed "that any referral to CPS or a law enforcement, whether made by
the mother, the therapists or by teachers, go through the case manager."21 	The
case manager was charged with determining "whether or not there's a basis to
make a report at all to CPS or law enforcement."22
Order Appointing a Case Manager
On June 24, 2011, the trial court entered several written orders, including
a final parenting plan, an order appointing a parenting communications coach, a
15 CP at 1066.
16 CP at 1066.
17 CP at 874-940.
18 See CP at 875-89.
19 See CP at 880-82.
20 CP at 896.
21 CP at 896-97.
22 CP at 897.

No. 70249-1-1/4
decree of dissolution, and findings of facts and conclusions of law.23 	The trial
court also filed an order appointing a case manager, "entered pursuant to the
[fjinal [pjarenting [pjlan."24 	The court appointed a case manager "to avoid false
allegations being reported to CPS or law enforcement and the children 	being
interviewed unnecessarily by the above agencies."25
In the order appointing a case manager, the trial court found that
[i]f the mother should become aware of information related to new
allegations of abuse by the father, she should immediately report
this information to the Case Manager. 	The Case Manager shall
investigate and, 	if the 	Case Manager determines that there is a
basis to make a report to CPS or to law enforcement, the Case
Manager shall make the 	report. 	The 	mother is not permitted to
make 	independent 	referrals to 	CPS 	or 	law enforcement, 	either
directly 	or 	through 	mandated 	reporters, 	independent 	of 	the
parenting coach and Case Manager.[26]
The order appointed the case manager "for at least six months," stating
that the case manager "may remain involved for up to two years following the
implementation of the [f]inal [pjarenting [pjlan."27
Contempt Order
On September 28, 2011, Bradley filed a motion for an order to show cause
why an order should not be entered finding KarIa in contempt.28 This motion was
predicated 	on an 	incident that occurred 	on 	June 8, 2011.29 	According 	to
Bradley's declaration in support of his motion, while A.H. and KarIa were visiting
23 CP 14,43,49, 1067
24 CP at 36, 1067.
25 CP at 38-39.
26 CP at 37.
27 CP at 37.
28 CP at 1085.
29 CP at 959, 1106.

No. 70249-1-1/5
the school nurse together, A.H. reported to the nurse that Bradley had shoved
him.30 	The school counselor contacted CPS to report the alleged abuse.31 KarIa
did not contact the case manager.32 	CPS later determined that the allegation
was unfounded.33
On 	November 4, 2011, the trial court entered a contempt order holding
KarIa in contempt of court.34 	The trial court found that KarIa "intentionally failed
to comply with" the August 2010 order and the court's May 2011 oral ruling,
which prohibited KarIa from contacting CPS or a mandatory reporter without first
contacting the case manager.35 	The trial court also found that KarIa "knowingly,
intentionally, and willfully" violated the trial court's rulings.36
The contempt order contained a purge clause, whereby KarIa could purge
her contempt by complying with the order appointing a case manager and the
parenting communication coach order, and by "first report[ing] any allegation she
is aware of to the case manager before she takes the children to a mandatory
report [sic]."37
The 	contempt 	order 	additionally 	included 	sanctions 	for 	committing
contempt of court. 	The court ordered KarIa to pay Bradley's attorney fees in the
30 CP at 1107-09.
31 CPat959, 1106.
32 CP at 1110.
33 CP at 959, 1110.
34 CP at 116.
35 CP at 117; see also CP at 37, 897.
36 CP at 118.
37 CP at 119.

No. 70249-1-1/6
amount of $3,000.38 	The court also directed KarIa to comply with "this court's
order."39
Review Hearing Order
A review hearing took place on May 31, 2012 to determine whether KarIa
had purged her contempt.40 	This hearing was not recorded or reported. 	In his
response declaration submitted to the trial court, Bradley claimed that there was
a 	pending 	CPS referral—the 	sixth 	allegation 	of abuse 	by 	Bradley, 	filed 	on
September 26, 2011—and he had 	not yet received a letter confirming it was
unfounded.41
The 	trial court 	did not enter a written order on the 	May 2012 	review
hearing until March 29, 2013, following a presentation hearing that day.42 	At the
presentation hearing, the court granted Karla's motion to purge the contempt
order.43 The March 2013 review hearing order stated, in relevant part:
As of the review hearing on 05.31.2012: . . . The Court finds that
Petitioner is working towards compliance with the Court orders, but
due to the findings above and the yet outstanding referral to Child
Protection Services, it is appropriate that the Court give Petitioner
more time to purge the contempt order. 	Petitioner may ask for
another review hearing in one year to purge her contempt. 	As of
03.29.2013; the court finds the contempt is now purged. t44]
38 CP at 116.
39 CP at 123.
40 See CP at 850.
41 CP at 1442-43.
42 CP at 850.
43 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (March 29, 2013) at 3.
44 CP at 854 (emphasis added).

No. 70249-1-1/7
Order on Reconsideration
The 	trial 	court denied 	Karla's 	motion 	for 	reconsideration 	in 	an 	order
entered 	on April 22, 	2013.45 	Among 	other things, 	the court denied 	Karla's
request to file her counsel's 	notes from 	the 	May 2012 	review hearing as a
narrative report.46 The court also awarded attorney fees to Bradley in the amount
of $951.50.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, KarIa seeks review of the review hearing order, the order on
reconsideration, the contempt order, and the order appointing a case manager.47
The 	issues 	she 	raises 	as 	to 	the 	review 	hearing 	order 	and 	the 	order 	on
reconsideration 	are 	moot. 	Furthermore, 	KarIa 	failed 	to 	timely 	appeal 	the
contempt order and order appointing a case manager. 	Accordingly, we dismiss
this appeal.
Review Hearing Order and Order on Reconsideration
"Only an aggrieved party may seek review by the appellate court." 	RAP
3.1. 	"A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief." 	Orwick v.
Citv of Seattle. 	103 Wn.2d 249, 253, 692 P.2d 793 (1984). 	This court may
nevertheless 	review 	a 	moot 	case 	if it presents 	an 	issue 	of continuing 	and
substantial public interest. 	In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884, 891, 93
P.3d 124 (2004) (citing Westerman v. Carv, 125 Wn.2d 277, 286, 892 P.2d 1067
(1994)).
45 CP at 858.
46 CP at 858-59.
47 CP 860.

No. 70249-1-1/8
Here, the review hearing order found that as of May 2012, KarIa had not
purged her contempt. 	However, it also found that as of March 2013, when the
order was entered, 	KarIa had 	purged 	her contempt. 	In this appeal, 	Karla's
challenges to this order pertain to the former finding—that as of May 2012, KarIa
had not yet purged the contempt. 	Specifically, she claims that this finding is not
supported by substantial evidence because it was predicated on an allegation of
abuse that predated the original contempt finding. 	With regard to the order on
reconsideration, KarIa contends that the court erred by rejecting her counsel's
notes 	from 	the 	May 	2012 	review 	hearing 	as 	a 	narrative 	report. 	These
contentions are moot because as of March 2013, KarIa is no longer in contempt
of court. 	See In re Interest of M.B., 101 Wn. App. 425, 432, 3 P.3d 780 (2000)
(issues raised on appeal were moot because at the time of appeal, the juveniles
had either purged or served the imposed detention term). Therefore, we cannot
provide effective relief.
KarIa 	asserts 	that 	the 	contempt 	order 	and 	the 	"underlying 	illegal
restraint"48 are not moot and she was aggrieved because the contempt order
ordered her to pay attorney fees in the amount of $3,000 and because the order
on reconsideration ordered her to pay attorney fees in the amount of $951.50.
But we do not dismiss this case on the basis that the contempt order raises moot
issues. 	Rather, as will be discussed, this court will not review the contempt order
because it was not timely appealed. 	In addition, the $951.50 attorney fees award
48 Br. of Appellant's Reply at 12.

No. 70249-1-1/9
has no relation to her contention raised on appeal regarding the court's rejection
of counsel's narrative report.49
Nevertheless, in her reply brief, KarIa cites to several cases in which a
Washington court addressed a moot case because it presented an 	issue of
continuing and substantial public interest. 	However, she does not explain how
the review hearing order and order on reconsideration meet this exception.
The review hearing order purged KarIa of her contempt and she is no
longer aggrieved. 	Because KarIa fails to demonstrate that this court can grant
effective relief or that the issues raised on appeal qualify for review under the
criteria for review of moot issues, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Contempt Order and Order Appointing a Case Manager
A party is allowed 30 days from the entry of judgment to file a notice of
appeal. 	RAP 5.2(a). 	KarIa assigns errors to the contempt order and the order
appointing a case manager.50 	She did not expressly designate these orders in
the notice of appeal. 	Rather, the notice of appeal states that KarIa seeks review
of "all other orders upon which [the review 	hearing order and the order on
reconsideration] depend or prejudicially 	affect."51 	The contempt order was
entered on November 4, 2011, and the order appointing a case manager was
49 See CP at 859.
50 Specifically, KarIa argues that these orders—which prohibited KarIa from reporting
allegations of abuse to CPS and law enforcement without first contacting the case
manager—amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint on her right to free speech and
right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 	KarIa also asserts several
assignments of error regarding the contempt order. 	But because the contempt order
and order appointing a case manager were not timely appealed, we do not address the
merits of these contentions.
51 CP at 860.

No. 70249-1-1/10
entered on June 24, 2011. 	KarIa did not appeal these orders within 30 days
following entry of judgment.
However, under RAP 2.4(b), an appellate court "will review a trial court
order or ruling not designated in the notice, including an appealable order, if (1)
the order or ruling prejudicially affects the decision designated in the notice, and
(2) the order is entered, or the ruling is made, before the appellate court accepts
review." 	Because we dismiss the issues raised in the review hearing order and
order on reconsideration as moot, we need not determine whether the contempt
order 	and 	order 	appointing 	a 	case 	manager 	prejudicially 	affected 	those
decisions.52
We 	decline 	to 	review 	the 	validity 	of the 	contempt 	order 	and 	order
appointing a case manager. 	KarIa failed to file a notice of appeal within 30 days
of entry of these decisions and therefore waived 	her right to challenge their
terms.
Attorney Fees on Appeal
Bradley requests attorney fees on appeal pursuant to RAP 18.9(a) or, in
the alternative, pursuant to RCW 26.09.160 and RCW 7.21.030.
We decline to order sanctions pursuant RAP 18.9(a). 	However, we grant
Bradley's request for attorney fees on appeal under RCW 26.09.160 and RCW
52 We also note that under RAP 18.8(a), an appellate court may "enlarge ... the time
within which an act must be done in a particular case in order to serve the ends of
justice." 	KarIa makes no request to excuse her failure to timely appeal under this rule.
Nevertheless, 	such 	request 	would 	fail 	because 	the 	circumstances 	are 	not
"extraordinary," as required for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. 	RAP
18.8(b).
10

No. 70249-1-1/11
7.21.030, subject to compliance with RAP 18.1. 	See In re Marriage of Rideout,
150 Wn.2d 337, 359, 77 P.3d 1174 (2003) ("[A] party is entitled to an award of
attorney fees on appeal to the extent the fees relate to the issue of contempt.").
Dismissed.
|/-oke^| 	.
WE CONCUR:
£crX,J
11