In re Marriage of Kovacs,
854 P.2d 629 (1993)


Procedure:Petitioner father sought review of a judgment of the Court of Appeals (Washington), which reversed the trial court's order awarding primary residential care of the children to the father rather than respondent mother.

Facts: H and W were married in 1982. H owned a small janitorial business and W worked in a restaurant. They had three children. During the marriage, W generally stayed home and cared for the children while H worked. H was forced to sell his business in 1984 and work for the new owner but eventually he was fired in 1988. H wanted to move to California for better job prospects. W moved with the children to Spokane to live with her parents until H could get established. H found a job and established a new family home in Irvine. W traveled to see the new home but did not tell H that she was planning a dissolution. When H arrived in Spokane to move the family, W told him the marriage was over. Testimony before the trial court indicated that W was the primary care giver. However, W was not a model mother and left the children to chase after a new paramour and was cited twice for drunk driving. She was arrested for DIJI after an accident in 1989. The children were in the car at the time and were placed in foster care for two days. An expert hired by H determined that W had a personality disorder and that would affect parenting, that expert met with both parents and tested both parents.

Issue: Does the Parenting Act of 1987 create a presumption that placement of a child with a parent who has been the primary caregiver is always in the best interests of the child unless proof that the primary caregiver's personality, conduct, or parenting style has harmed the child?

Rule:Parenting Act of 1987 does not create presumption in favor of child placement with parent who has been primary caregiver; instead, Act requires consideration of seven factors and provides that child's relationship with each parent be factor given greatest weight in determining permanent residential placement.

Holding: No. Judgment reversed.
The Supreme Court, Andersen, C.J., held that: (1) Parenting Act of 1987 does not create presumption in favor of child placement with parent who has been primary caregiver, and (2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding residential placement of children to husband.

Analysis:The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals that reversed the trial court's order awarding residential placement of the children to the father, and affirmed the parenting plan ordered by the trial court.