Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law Discretionary Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioner asks appellate court to hear Smith v. McKinney, alleging unfiled response and procedural errors
Summary
In oral arguments on a motion for discretionary review in Smith v. McKinney, petitioner Eddie Smith III, appearing pro se, argued the trial court granted custody and child-support relief based on filings that were never placed on the record and urged an immediate stay; the respondent said the orders are appropriate and the parenting plan benefits the child. The court took the matter under advisement and allowed five days for supplemental filings.
Eddie Smith III, petitioner pro se, asked a state appellate panel to accept discretionary review of a family-law ruling in Smith v. McKinney, arguing that critical filings were not on the trial-court record and that the lower court improperly awarded custody and child support without a responsive motion.
Smith told the court he would rely on several statutes and court rules — including RCW 26.09.191 and rules CR 7, GR 14, GR 22 and GR 31 — and cited precedent he said limits the court’s power to grant affirmative relief absent a motion. He told the panel: “We based an entire child support proceeding on an empty record.”
Why it matters: discretionary review is granted only in limited circumstances. Smith argued the record shows procedural error and asserted that allowing the case to proceed to direct appeal would be futile because the trial court’s handling already restricted his access to a broader review. He asked the court both to take the case now and to issue a stay of the child-support and custody orders, saying the orders are causing immediate financial harm.
At oral argument Smith said the docket sheet shows the respondent “never filed a motion” and that responsive materials were served through the Department of Child Support but not filed with the trial court. He also argued that the trial court’s factual findings were unsupported: “They’re made up numbers,” he said, and said a commissioner had conceded the lack of verification on the record.
The respondent (name not stated in the record) disputed that review was warranted. She told the court she has been the child’s primary caretaker, that the parenting plan provides stability and benefits their son, and that she believes the trial court’s orders contain no error. “I believe that there is no error in what we are doing,” she said.
Smith also raised financial hardship as a reason for a stay, saying a $700 monthly child-support obligation is depleting his resources and that statutory protections for retirement assets constrain his ability to pay appellate fees and avoid IRS penalties. He asked the court to consider those circumstances in deciding whether to step in now.
The presiding judge interrupted at points seeking clarification about whether the respondent’s filing existed at the time of the trial hearing or was filed later; Smith replied that the filing was served but not filed and that a later filing had been made “as a courtesy three months after the fact.” The judge noted many of Smith’s arguments could be raised on direct appeal after a final order but asked why the appellate court should take the case immediately; Smith replied that the constraints he described would render later relief ineffective.
The panel granted both parties an opportunity to file supplemental materials within five days. The court took the motion for discretionary review under advisement and said it would issue a ruling shortly.
The proceeding was conducted by videoconference and broadcast on TVW; the court did not rule at the hearing.
