In the Matter of the Parenting and Support of: Z.F.R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
In re the Parenting and Support of
Z.F.R.†
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 40297-5-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — Neila Reutov appeals the trial court’s parenting plan
for her young son, Z.F.R. She argues the record required the trial court to find the
presence of a limiting factor, i.e., a history of domestic violence, and to find that a shared
residential schedule was not in Z.F.R.’s best interest. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
Overview
Neila Reutov and Matthew Lee are a separated couple who have one child
together, Z.F.R. In late 2022, Lee filed a petition for a parenting plan, residential
schedule and/or child support. One week later, the trial court issued a temporary
parenting plan. In the spring of 2023, the court issued a second temporary parenting plan.
† To protect the privacy interests of the minor child, we use their initials
throughout this opinion. Gen. Order for Court of Appeals, In re Changes to Case Title
(Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2018) (effective September 1, 2018),
http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts.
FILED
JULY 29, 2025
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
2
The second plan provided a three-phase plan in which Lee would gradually receive
increased residential time with Z.F.R. The plan did not place any restrictions on either
parent. Both parties filed cross motions for revision, which the court denied.
Trial
The matter proceeded to a two-day trial. Because the issues on appeal are limited,
we highlight only those portions of the witness testimonies bearing on Lee’s purported
domestic violence and the residential schedule.
A. Matthew Lee
Lee testified he had been absent for approximately the first eight months of his
child’s life. Lee was initially employed for an out-of-state job that provided a two weeks
on/one week off work schedule, which allowed him to return home during his time off.
Lee wanted to see his son more, so he found an in-state job with less pay. Lee stated his
parenting plan proposal was close to a 50/50 split, with Reutov receiving slightly more
time with Z.F.R. Lee assured Reutov that when his work was in its busy season, his wife,
Cassandra Lee, would be able to care for Z.F.R. when necessary.
Lee claimed he tried to attend the birth of his child, but Reutov did not want him
present. He saw Z.F.R. for the first time when he was six days old and was only allowed
10 minutes at a park. Lee said he has repeatedly tried to co-parent with Reutov, but their
disagreements have made it difficult. Lee claimed he had attempted to get Z.F.R.

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
3
vaccinated, but Reutov refused to discuss the issue. Lee stated that he needs to
repeatedly ask the same questions in order to get an answer about Z.F.R.’s health. There
was also disagreement over whether the child should get evaluated by a dentist.
Lee testified that he made $123,447 in 2022 and left that job in order to spend
more time with his son. At the time of trial, Lee held a class A commercial driver’s
license. His employment was dependent on whether his union had available work. Lee
expressed to the court that the best thing for his child is to have both parents involved,
and he believes that Z.F.R. would be disadvantaged by not having a father figure in his
life.
B. Neila Reutov
Reutov testified she is self-employed, working as a dog trainer at her residential
address. Her work is by appointment, and she strives to work 40 hours per week. Reutov
also boards dogs between two to seven nights per week. She boards the dogs in a
separate area from where Z.F.R. is during the day. When Reutov is unable to care for her
son, his paternal grandmother, Jennifer Strand, cares for him. Reutov testified that Strand
cares for Z.F.R. for roughly four hours per week.
Reutov testified she plans to build a kennel on a different part of her property and
reserve a play-area space for Z.F.R. in order to continue caring for him while working.
She expects to ask for help watching Z.F.R. when needed. Reutov testified that she only

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
4
leaves Z.F.R. alone for very brief periods, such as when she needs to feed the dogs.
Reutov claims her business has not interfered with her ability to care for Z.F.R.
Reutov and Lee lived together between Fall 2020 and November 2021. Z.F.R.
was born in May 2022. Reutov testified that Lee verbally abused her during the
relationship, specifically by name-calling. Reutov claimed that Lee had a substance
abuse problem, pointing to a time when Lee was taking a coworker’s Adderall
prescription. Reutov claimed that these two reasons were factors in her decision to end
the relationship.
Lee attended Reutov’s doctor’s appointments during her pregnancy. By the time
Reutov gave birth to Z.F.R., Reutov and Lee were not speaking with each other. Reutov
claims she was stressed and moved to a new residence to avoid him. However, Lee
learned where she was living and visited the residence despite Reutov telling him to stop.
Reutov told Lee that she did not want him present for the child’s birth because he was
causing her stress. After Reutov returned home from the hospital, she attempted to
arrange a visit between Lee and Z.F.R. at Lee’s mother’s house. Lee did not want the
visit to take place at his mother’s house and instead preferred they meet at a restaurant,
which Reutov declined.
Between the time when Lee filed a paternity action and November 2022, Reutov
claimed that Lee did not show interest in having contact with Z.F.R. Had Lee shown

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
5
interest, Reutov stated that she would have arranged a visit. Since late 2022, Lee has
exercised his allotted time with Z.F.R. Reutov testified that she has the most significant
and stable relationship with Z.F.R. She also testified that Z.F.R. has a strong relationship
with her sister, Christina Reutov, who helps care for Z.F.R. Reutov also testified that
Z.F.R. has a strong relationship with his grandparents.
Reutov asked to continue being the primary parent of Z.F.R. While Z.F.R. has
never returned from Lee’s care with a physical injury, Reutov is concerned about Lee’s
parenting abilities. Reutov has noticed that Z.F.R. returns from Lee’s visits with severe
diaper rashes. Additionally, Reutov is concerned about Z.F.R.’s diet when in Lee’s care.
Reutov noted that it takes up to one week for Z.F.R. to adjust his behavior after returning
to her care. Reutov testified it would be best if Z.F.R. visits Lee every other weekend.
Reutov testified that she has been investigated by Child Protective Services (CPS)
following a report made by Lee. Reutov’s business has also been the subject of an
investigation following another report made by Lee. CPS closed the investigation into
Reutov, finding no concerns, and her business was cleared of any wrongdoing. Reutov
describes her communications with Lee as challenging. Reutov claims Lee is combative
and is never satisfied with her answers to his questions. Reutov testified she has concerns
about making joint decisions with Lee.

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
6
Reutov noted that Lee usually provided visitation dates with Z.F.R. based on his
work schedule. Reutov claims that Lee did not give her advance notice of his change in
employment. Reutov refused to adjust the schedule because she had already made plans
around it.
Reutov does not want Z.F.R. to receive vaccinations due to her religious beliefs,
while Lee wants Z.F.R. to receive some, but not all. Reutov’s religion forbids
preventative health measures such as vaccines but allows for treatment when an
individual becomes sick. In accordance with their religious beliefs, neither Reutov, her
sister, nor her parents have been vaccinated.
Lee questioned Reutov on cross-examination. Reutov said that Z.F.R. was behind
on his speech abilities and is experiencing some dental issues.1 Lee asked Reutov why
she had offered him extra time with Z.F.R. on one occasion, and Reutov responded that
she was trying to be nice and that Lee did not like her previous answers. Lee also
questioned Reutov about an occasion where she allowed Lee to take Z.F.R. for extra time
so that Reutov could keep her vet appointment. Lee asked Reutov why she did not
contact Lee while Z.F.R. stayed with him overnight if she was concerned about his
1 Reutov stated that Z.F.R.’s dental issues were not a result of neglect and that
Z.F.R.’s teeth are simply not growing in as expected. Reutov testified that she informed
Lee of these dental issues and that Lee has never attended any appointments despite being
aware of them.

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
7
safety. Reutov stated that she did not reach out because it was Lee’s designated parenting
time.
Lee then asked Reutov about an incident involving her sister, Anfisa. Reutov
testified that Anfisa assaulted both her and her friend. She admitted that her sister was
hitting her friend when Lee intervened and choked her sister to protect her friend.
Lee asked Reutov why she did not call the police if there was domestic violence,
and Reutov said she did not know. Lee asked if there had been any domestic violence in
their relationship. Reutov testified that Lee did have a history of domestic violence,
noting that he slammed doors and acted violently toward his dog on one occasion.
Reutov testified she does not have any conflicts with Lee when they exchange
Z.F.R. She said that one of the possible reasons that Z.F.R. comes home with a diaper
rash is that Lee gives him too much fruit juice. Reutov testified that Z.F.R. has never
been injured in Lee’s care.
Reutov testified to the behavior changes that Z.F.R. exhibits after returning from
Lee’s care. Reutov said that Z.F.R. becomes very clingy and does not want Reutov to
leave his sight. She noted that his nap schedule is more difficult to maintain following an
exchange. Reutov testified that she has informed Lee of these difficult transitions in the
past but has stopped communicating these issues because she does not want to badger

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
8
him. Reutov admitted that having a father in a child’s life can be important to their
development and health.
On redirect examination, Reutov was asked why she stayed with Lee despite his
acts of domestic violence. She stated that she still loved him at the time and had nowhere
else to go. Reutov stated that Lee’s history of domestic violence makes it difficult for the
two of them to communicate. Reutov noted that it is difficult to communicate effectively
with Lee regarding any issues with Z.F.R.
Reutov stated that she believes it is in Z.F.R.’s best interest to have a healthy
relationship with his father. She claims she is not trying to restrict Z.F.R.’s time with Lee
and wants Z.F.R. to spend the same amount of time with Lee as prescribed in the
temporary parenting plan that was in place at the time of trial.
C. Zach Hansen
Zach Hansen is the ex-husband of Lee’s current wife, Cassandra Lee. Hansen and
Cassandra had one child together. Hansen testified that he has seen Lee interact with
Hansen’s son, and he believes Lee is a loving father. Hansen has never seen Lee angry,
mean, or violent toward children. Hansen also testified that Lee has a strong relationship
with Cassandra’s other child. On cross-examination, Hansen stated that he had seen Lee
with Z.F.R. approximately 10 times since Z.F.R. was born.

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
9
D. Cassandra Lee
Cassandra is Matthew Lee’s wife. Cassandra testified that Lee is a loving,
attentive, and caring father toward Z.F.R. Cassandra’s children have a strong relationship
with Lee, and she feels that he has been a positive influence in their lives. Cassandra and
her children have a good relationship with Z.F.R.
E. Carol Berquist
Carol Berquist is Lee’s mother-in-law, and they have known each other for
approximately one year. Berquist testified that Z.F.R. appears to be very happy while
under the care of Lee. Berquist also stated that Lee has a phenomenal relationship with
Berquist’s grandchildren and has had a positive impact on their lives. Berquist said that
she never saw Lee yell, act meanly, or behave violently toward the children or his wife.
F. Christina Reutov
Christina Reutov is Neila Reutov’s sister. Christina has lived with Reutov and
Z.F.R. since Z.F.R. was born. Christina testified that Z.F.R. has a very strong
relationship with Reutov and that she does not have any concerns about Reutov as a
parent. On cross-examination, Christina said that she is not familiar with Lee’s parenting
ability because she has not seen him with Z.F.R. outside of pickups and drop-offs.

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
10
G. Jennifer Strand
Jennifer Strand is Lee’s mother. Strand first met Reutov when she was dating Lee.
Strand sees Z.F.R. approximately four times per month for between one and four hours
per visit. Reutov is present during Strand’s visits. Strand testified that Z.F.R. has a good
relationship with Reutov and that she is a good mother. Strand does not have any
concerns about Reutov’s parenting ability and has never seen her engage in neglectful or
abusive behavior toward Z.F.R. On cross-examination, Strand testified that she had
never seen Lee interact with Z.F.R. and knows nothing of his parenting skills.
Joint decision making and shared residential schedule ordered
Following trial, the court entered a final parenting plan. The parenting plan
provides for joint decision-making for major determinations. It also provides different
time schedules before and after Z.F.R. starts kindergarten. Before Z.F.R. starts
kindergarten, he is scheduled to live primarily with Reutov. Lee has residential time with
Z.F.R. every other weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. and every
Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. When Z.F.R. begins kindergarten, he will
begin living with both parents for an equal amount of time on a week-on, week-off basis,
with exchanges taking place every Monday at 6:00 p.m. The court did not place
limitations on either parent for decision making or time schedules.
Reutov appeals the final parenting plan to this court.

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
11
ANALYSIS
Reutov argues the trial court erred in not finding the presence of a limiting factor,
i.e., a history of domestic violence, and in finding that a shared residential schedule was
in the best interest of Z.F.R. For the reasons below, we disagree.
Standard of Review
“[A] trial court’s rulings dealing with the provisions of a parenting plan are
reviewed for abuse of discretion.” In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 46, 940
P.2d 1362 (1997). “A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly
unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons.” Id. at 46-47. A
decision is manifestly unreasonable if it does not fall within the range of acceptable
choices given the facts and applicable legal standard. Id. at 47.
A trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, which
requires “a sufficient quantum of evidence in the record to persuade a reasonable person
that a finding of fact is true.” Pardee v. Jolly, 163 Wn.2d 558, 566, 182 P.3d 967 (2008).
An appellate court should not substitute its own judgment on a trial court’s factual
finding if supported by substantial evidence. Id.
A. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
If the court finds that a parent has a history of acts of domestic violence as
outlined in RCW 7.105.010, the permanent parenting plan shall not require mutual

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
12
decision-making. Former RCW 26.09.191(1)(c) (2021). Furthermore, a parent’s history
of domestic violence requires courts to limit that parent’s residential time with the child.
RCW 26.09.191(2)(a)(iii). “Domestic violence” is defined as “[p]hysical harm, bodily
injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault;
nonconsensual sexual conduct or nonconsensual sexual penetration; coercive control;
unlawful harassment; or stalking of” an intimate partner, family member, or household
member by the same. Former RCW 7.105.010(9)(a), (b) (2022). Here, the trial court
found that neither party lived in a home with a person who had a history of domestic
violence.
Reutov first argues that Lee engaged in domestic violence by abusing his dog
while the parties were living together. Regardless of the accuracy of this claim, violence
directed toward household pets does not fall under the definition of “domestic violence”
under former RCW 7.105.010(9). To qualify for this definition, the victim must be an
intimate partner, family member, or household member. Former RCW 7.105.010(9)(a),
(b). Each category requires that a victim be a person. See former RCW 7.105.010(13),
(20).
Reutov next argues that Lee’s history of verbal abuse supports a finding of
domestic violence. At trial, Reutov stated the following in response to a question
regarding the type of verbal abuse that she faced:

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
13
MS. REUTOV: He would call me crazy, especially when I found
out I was pregnant. He was not happy about it at first. He said he would
never want a parenting plan with me because I’m a crazy bitch. Just a lot of
name-calling.
Rep. of Proc. at 137. The categories of domestic violence that do not include physical
violence are infliction of fear of physical harm, coercive control, and unlawful
harassment. See former RCW 7.105.010(9). The name-calling described above did not
threaten violence nor did it necessarily establish a history of coercive control or
harassment.
Reutov lastly argues that Lee’s use of physical force against her sister qualifies as
domestic violence. Here, Lee and Anifisa are family members because they are related
by marriage. See former RCW 7.105.010(13). Thus, if Lee assaulted Anifisa, this would
qualify as domestic violence. But here, Lee’s use of force was arguably lawful because
he choked Anifisa to prevent her from assaulting Reutov’s friend. Exercising lawful
force is not that type of force that qualifies as “domestic violence.” This is especially
true, here, where Anifisa had also hit Reutov, and Lee’s intervention in the fight also
could be viewed as protecting her.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to find that
Lee engaged in domestic violence and in declining to impose restrictions.

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
14
B. NO ERROR IN RESIDENTIAL SCHEDULE ORDER
Trial courts possess broad discretion when crafting a permanent parenting plan. In
re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23, 35, 283 P.3d 546 (2012). RCW 26.09.187(3)(a)
provides multiple factors that the court must consider before adopting a plan:
(i) The relative strength, nature, and stability of the child’s
relationship with each parent;
(ii) The agreements of the parties, provided they were entered into
knowingly and voluntarily;
(iii) Each parent’s past and potential for future performance of
parenting functions as defined in RCW 26.09.004(3), including whether a
parent has taken greater responsibility for performing parenting functions
relating to the daily needs of the child;
(iv) The emotional needs and developmental level of the child;
(v) The child’s relationship with siblings and with other significant
adults, as well as the child’s involvement with his or her physical
surroundings, school, or other significant activities;
(vi) The wishes of the parents and the wishes of a child who is
sufficiently mature to express reasoned and independent preferences as to
his or her residential schedule; and
(vii) Each parent's employment schedule, and shall make
accommodations consistent with those schedules.
Factor (i) shall be given the greatest weight.
Reutov contends that the trial court abused its discretion in adopting an alternating
week-on, week-off residential schedule after Z.F.R. reaches kindergarten. Lee argues this
schedule was not an abuse of discretion. We agree with Lee.

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
15
1. Strength, nature, and stability
The first factor requires the court to consider the relative strength, nature, and
stability of the child’s relationship with each parent. RCW 26.09.187(3)(a)(i).
Testimony at trial undoubtedly showed that Reutov has a strong relationship with Z.F.R.
and that Reutov is a good mother. Lee provided minimal testimony in his direct
examination about his relationship with Z.F.R. He stated that he believed it was
important for Z.F.R. to have a father in his life but did not directly attest to the strength,
nature, and stability of their relationship.
Hansen testified that he has seen Lee with Z.F.R. approximately 10 times and
believes that Lee is a loving father. Cassandra testified that Lee is a loving, attentive, and
caring father toward Z.F.R. And finally, Berquist testified that Z.F.R. appears to be very
happy while under the care of Lee. Although Lee did not directly testify to the strength
of his relationship with Z.F.R., those who have observed their relationship describe it as
strong and healthy.
2. Past and future performance of parenting functions
The third factor requires courts to consider “those aspects of the parent-child
relationship in which the parent makes decisions and performs functions necessary for the
care and growth of the child.” RCW 26.09.004(2); see also RCW 26.09.187(3)(a)(iii).
Parenting functions include:

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
16
(a) Maintaining a loving, stable, consistent, and nurturing
relationship with the child;
(b) Attending to the daily needs of the child, such as feeding,
clothing, physical care and grooming, supervision, health care, and day
care, and engaging in other activities which are appropriate to the
developmental level of the child and that are within the social and
economic circumstances of the particular family;
(c) Attending to adequate education for the child, including
remedial or other education essential to the best interests of the child;
(d) Assisting the child in developing and maintaining appropriate
interpersonal relationships;
(e) Exercising appropriate judgment regarding the child’s welfare,
consistent with the child’s developmental level and the family’s social and
economic circumstances; and
(f) Providing for the financial support of the child.
RCW 26.09.004(2).
Reutov has taken on a majority of the parenting duties since Z.F.R. was born. Lee
had minimal presence for the first eight months of the child’s life. When visitation was
first ordered, Lee had two-hour visits a couple of days out of a month. At the time of
trial, Lee was in the third phase of the temporary parenting plan, seeing Z.F.R. from
Thursday at 9:00 a.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. once per month.
At trial, Reutov expressed concern over Z.F.R.’s diet and diaper rashes originating
from his visits with Lee. Regarding Z.F.R.’s diet, Reutov was concerned after learning
that Z.F.R. only ate Cheetos while with Lee. Testimony revealed that Lee only had two-
hour visits with Z.F.R. at the time, indicating that he did not bear a significant

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
17
responsibility in feeding Z.F.R. Z.F.R. would also return to Reutov with severe diaper
rashes, potentially as a result of Lee giving Z.F.R. too much fruit juice.
Lee’s ability to provide financial support for the child is less clear. Lee did not
provide a copy of his 2022 tax return, but he indicated he was making his monthly
payments toward child support backpay. Lee also appeared to make an error in his
financial declaration, showing that his expenses significantly exceeded his income.
However, Reutov does not argue that Lee is financially incapable of providing for Z.F.R.
3. Emotional needs and developmental level
Both parents testified that it is important to have a father in a child’s life. Reutov
noted that when Z.F.R. returns from his visits with Lee, Z.F.R. acts very clingy. Reutov
noted that he has a difficult time staying on his nap schedule and that he does not like
when Reutov leaves his sight. Reutov believes Z.F.R. acts this way because he has been
away from her for too long.
4. Z.F.R.’s relationship with other adults
Lee’s wife, Cassandra, testified that both she and her children have a good
relationship with Z.F.R. Reutov’s sister, Christina, also has a strong relationship with
Z.F.R. There was no testimony indicating that Z.F.R. has had a negative experience with
any adults who reside with his parents.

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
18
5. Wishes of the parents
Reutov believes that it is important for children to have a father in their lives and
that it is in Z.F.R.’s best interest to have a healthy relationship with his father. Reutov
believes it is in Z.F.R.’s best interest to visit Lee every other weekend rather than on a
week-on, week-off schedule. Lee believes that equal parenting with a close to a 50/50
split is in the best interest of Z.F.R.
6. Employment schedules
Reutov testified that she works approximately 40 hours per week and that she
takes care of Z.F.R. while she works. When Reutov is unable to watch Z.F.R., Strand
looks after him for roughly four hours per week. Lee’s work schedule is less predictable
as his hours are dependent on the type of work available at the time. However, he states
that Cassandra will be able to look after Z.F.R. when he works during a busy season.
Discussion of placement factors
Based on the above factors, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in ordering a shared residential schedule beginning when Z.F.R. enters kindergarten.
Testimony showed that Lee is a loving father who has a healthy relationship with Z.F.R.
There are no allegations of Lee mistreating Z.F.R., and Lee’s relationships with the
children of his current wife are positive.

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
19
Reutov’s concerns about Z.F.R.’s diaper rash do not warrant a different result.
Testimony showed that Lee began feeding Z.F.R. other foods after Reutov expressed her
concerns. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Z.F.R.’s diaper rashes remain a
recurring issue following Lee and Reutov’s discussion about Lee giving Z.F.R. too much
fruit juice.
Reutov argues that Lee’s increased residential time, when Z.F.R. enters
kindergarten, constitutes a modification of the parenting plan, which requires evidence
that the modification is in Z.F.R.’s best interest. We disagree. The “best interest of the
child” standard applies to modifications of a parenting plan. RCW 26.09.260(1). Here,
Lee’s increased residential time with Z.F.R. is ordered in the parenting plan, not in a
modification to that plan.
Both parties agreed it is important for Z.F.R. to have a father in his life. Lee wants
to have a strong, close relationship with Z.F.R., and he—as well as Reutov—appear to be
fit and loving parents. The trial court had a reasonable basis to order a shared residential
schedule beginning when Z.F.R. enters kindergarten.

No. 40297-5-III
In re Parenting & Support of Z.F.R.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
~ ....,.,,..... ...~ ...1I l 	~Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
Fearing, J. 	) 	Murphy, J.
20