Court of Appeals hears arguments on motion to review temporary child support order

The Washington State Court of Appeals (Tacoma) heard oral argument on a motion for discretionary review of a temporary child support order entered 08/08/2025 in the case captioned Justin Gayle v. Sandra Goan.

The petitioner told the court she sought review of the temporary child support order and associated child support worksheets and asked that any relief be backdated to her March 2025 filing, saying delay would improperly defer an enforceable order. "It's a doctor's letter," the petitioner said, describing sealed medical records she said show a disability that began earlier and prevents gainful employment. She said she has five children in her care and that at least two supporting documents were submitted under penalty of perjury to show that fact.

The presiding judge pressed the petitioner on two central factual questions: how many children are living full time with her or for whom she provides support, and the nature and amount of her disability income. The judge noted the trial court’s worksheet appeared to treat three children as living full time with the petitioner and asked whether two additional children should have been credited. On income, the judge asked whether the petitioner receives Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) of about $1,100 a month; the petitioner said SSDI is her sole income and that other household funds come from her husband.

James Rodriguez, attorney for the respondent, urged the court to deny discretionary review. Citing the appellate standard in RAP 2.3(b), Rodriguez argued the petitioner had not shown that further proceedings would be "useless" or that the trial court substantially altered the status quo in a way that limits her freedom to act. Rodriguez also told the court the superior court used the Department of Child Support’s "whole family" formula — a discretionary tool — and that no statute requires a particular formula. He said the record contains references to VA benefits and prior findings that the petitioner had worked, and argued the petitioner had multiple opportunities to provide documentary proof but had not done so in written declarations.

Counsel and the judge discussed statutory and practical issues about counting SSDI and VA benefits in child support calculations. The court and counsel noted ambiguity in the record and in case law about whether SSDI is treated as excluded income; Rodriguez said in his practice SSDI is often treated as part of Social Security generally, and he suggested the petitioner could obtain verification from the local VA office or its website if she does not receive VA benefits.

The petitioner also pointed to respondent financial records — including asserted tax warrants of more than $22,000 and a judgment she said exceeded $2,000 — to argue it would be inappropriate to require her to pay certain providers directly. The petitioner told the court she had submitted multiple sworn declarations asserting her care of five children and claimed the superior court erred in calculating child support.

After hearing both sides and asking clarifying questions, the judge took the motion under advisement and said she would issue a written ruling. The judge noted there is not currently a permanent-order trial date set in the family court and instructed the petitioner to contact her case manager to confirm how the court communicates with her. The matter was adjourned.

Next steps: the Court of Appeals will issue a written decision on whether to accept discretionary review and, if accepted, whether to grant relief or remand to the trial court for further proceedings.