Appellate court hears challenge to parenting-plan modification centering on school stability and domestic-violence findings

An appellate panel heard argument in the case captioned Colinit Logbas v. Michael Logbas over a trial court’s modification of a parenting plan that shifted primary residential time to the father and kept the children in the Mercer Island school district.

Kelly Cotting, counsel for the appellant, Kehlani Lagvis Parks, told the court the record is voluminous and that the key legal question is which statutory framework applies on modification. Cotting said the parenting plan, entered by agreement on 01/23/2020, included phased relocation provisions and a temporary-relocation clause; she argued the trial court erred by treating the original agreement as a tiebreaker rather than applying the full statutory factors courts use when a joint custodial environment is alleged to be no longer workable. Cotting said the trial court failed to place its complete statutory analysis on the record and singled out only a subset of the factors the court should have considered.

Cotting also urged the court to revisit credibility determinations related to alleged domestic violence, noting the legislature revised the statutory definition effective in 2020 and arguing that certain admissions on the record met the new statutory definition. "You cannot enter an agreement that says you temporarily relocate for 3 years and 8 months," Cotting said, urging the panel to consider pre-decree facts, guardian ad litem findings, and the arbitrator’s report when assessing whether the original agreement was in the children’s best interests.

Valerie Villason, counsel for respondent Michael Lagbus, asked the panel to affirm the trial court’s modification order. Villason said the parenting plan was a valid court order entered with the court’s imprimatur and that the modification petition was brought under the statute governing modification, requiring a showing of a substantial change in circumstances. She argued the record — including a guardian ad litem report and testimony — supported the trial court’s decision to place the children primarily with the father to avoid disrupting their schooling in the Mercer Island School District.

On the domestic-violence point, Villason told the court the trial court made credibility findings and that the incidents cited by the appellant (an occasion when the father became frustrated assembling furniture and threw down a hammer, and an instance in which the father nudged a child with his foot while walking) did not amount to the kind of history of domestic violence that would mandate different restrictions under the statute. "If that's domestic violence, then I think a lot of us here who've ever tried to put together an IKEA shelf would have probably done the same thing," Villason said.

Villason also addressed child-support findings, noting the court's net-income calculation (the court found net income of $6,737) and that the mother’s reported take-home pay was roughly $7,000 per month; the respondent disputed the appellant’s asserted business-expense deductions and said the record supported the trial court's calculations. Respondent counsel further argued that a previously vacated contempt order was not properly before the appellate court on this appeal and therefore should not affect the court’s review of the modification.

During bench questioning, the panel asked whether the record contained testimony about disagreements over selecting a primary health-care provider and whether the mother resisted enrolling the children in local activities after the modification; counsel for the respondent said the trial court found evidence that the mother’s resistance delayed the children’s access to proper health care and extracurricular participation, which the court deemed detrimental.

In rebuttal, Cotting said the trial court misapplied res judicata principles and failed to treat pre-decree facts as circumstances the court could consider on modification. She argued that the father’s enforcement approach — filing contempt proceedings to force Mercer Island enrollment — was part of the factual backdrop that rendered the current environment detrimental to the children and that the trial court should not have strictly construed the agreement against the mother without weighing GAL and arbitrator findings that raised questions about the agreement’s original validity.

The panel concluded argument and closed the calendar. The appellate court's next steps (whether to issue a written opinion, set oral argument for further briefing, or schedule a decision) were not announced at the hearing.