Ponsaran v. Anker (In re J.D.W.)

14 Wash.App.2d 388

471 P.3d 228

In the MATTER OF the Parentage of J.D.W. and J.O.W.

Jamie Lee Ponsaran, Appellant,

v.Lyndsey Anker, Respondent,andJustin Williams, Defendant.

No. 80497-9-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

FILED August 24, 2020

Jamie Lee Ponsaran (Appearing Pro Se), 3039 S. Portland Street, Seattle, WA, 98108, for Appellant.

Betsy Ann Crumb, Carroll Law Group, PLLC, 6041 California Ave., Sw Ste., 101, Seattle, WA, 98136-1673, for Respondent.

PUBLISHED OPINION

Smith, J. ¶1 In this case of first impression, we examine the standards for determining whether a petition for de facto parentage may proceed to a full adjudication under RCW 26.26A.440, Washington's de facto parentage statute. That statute, which was enacted in 2018 as part of an updated Washington Uniform Parentage Act (WUPA), chapter 26.26A RCW, requires the trial court to make an initial determination of whether the petition and any response raise "disputed facts material to the issue of standing."¹ We hold today that the proper focuses of that initial determination are whether the petitioner unequivocally parented the child as part of the child's family unit and whether that parent-child relationship was consented to and fostered by a legal parent. We hold further that because the response to Jaime Ponsaran's petition for de facto parentage did not raise any disputed facts material to the issue of standing and because Ponsaran alleged sufficient facts, if proved, to satisfy each substantive element of de facto parentage, the trial court erred by dismissing his petition. Therefore, we reverse and remand for trial.

FACTS

¶2 On March 26, 2019, Ponsaran filed a verified petition to be adjudicated a de facto parent of J.D.W. and J.O.W., whose legal parents are Lyndsey Anker, the children's mother, and Justin Williams, the children's biological father. In his petition, Ponsaran alleged that he had known J.D.W. since he was 18 months old and J.O.W. since her birth. Ponsaran alleged that he and Anker lived together with the children from December 2012 (when J.O.W. was about 3 months old and J.D.W. was about 21 months old) until May 2016, "and again for a number of months in 2017." He alleged that while living with the children, he "bonded with [them] and they view me as their dad." He alleged further:

The children call me daddy. [Anker] refers to me as dad when speaking to the children or to third parties[.] I am registered at school as their father and whenever we signed up for events I was listed as their father. Both [Anker] and I have posted photos of me with the children with references to me as "daddy."

He also alleged that even when he and Anker did not live together, he "spent between 2 and 5 nights per week with the children and spoke to them daily." Ponsaran alleged that he "took responsibility for the children's parenting, including but not limited to meals, baths, toilet training, [and] bed time routine" when they were "little," and that as they grew older, he "took them to and from school and daycare, scheduled and took them to activities and was with them in the hospital when that was necessary." Ponsaran alleged that he held the children out as his own, that "[u]p until recently [Anker] fully supported my relationship with the children," and that Anker "routinely referred to me as the children's father and was aware the children always called me that." Ponsaran alleged that it was in the children's best interest for their relationship with him to continue, asserting, "I am their father. They have no one else who has taken on that role a[n]d I have been here for them for the past. They love me and are being harmed right now because they are unable to spend time with me."

¶3 After Ponsaran filed his petition, the trial court issued a case scheduling order setting a deadline for a "court review" at which "the judge will review the petition and any response filed to determine if the case should move forward." Williams later waived notice of the court review.

¶4 Anker responded to Ponsaran's petition on May 1, 2019, and asked the court to deny Ponsaran's petition. She alleged in her verified response that Ponsaran "liked to spoil the children with toys and playing" but that "[h]e never helped me with any of the children's responsibilities such as paying for childcare, insurance, groceries, rent or utilities." Anker alleged that Ponsaran "imposed himself on [Anker] and [her] family." According to Anker, Ponsaran "took [the children] to do fun things and was available during times [Anker] was at work and school because his schedule was flexible and he seemed to have an unlimited supply of money and time." With regard to the best interests of the children, Anker alleged:

[Ponsaran] enjoys the idea of being a fun dad, spoiling them [by] buying toys and taking them to do fun things, he enjoys the attention he gets from others by pretending to be a great "father". All of the other responsibilities a[s] far as raising the children to be functional adults is all up to me, he directly undermines me and the rules and restrictions I have set forth to protect the children. He has complete disregard for my wishes and to be frank despises me.

While in his care in the past year the children have reported to me that they have witnessed him being intimate with at least three different women, they have seen him in the kitchen sticking needles in his stomach, they talk about the stacks of money he keeps in his closet. My daughter reported to me that she took a shower with one of the women, with their clothes on but this to me is extremely disrespectful seeing as she is a complete stranger to me. They have witnessed yelling and aggressive behavior towards me, my mother and people driving on the road. His lack of stability mentally, physically, emotionally and financially are major concerns of mine. He hasn't had a stable documented job since I've known him. He associates and takes the children around unsafe people and situations. His continued abuse of alcohol, narcotics and steroids make[s] him unsafe to be around. And his lack of care for any boundaries with the law and me as a mother, make him impossible to trust. At this point I feel he is using my children as pawns to try to inflict as much pain as possible to me and once again control my life.

The people in our immediate circle have all commented to me on how the children's behavior has changed positively since [Ponsaran]’s recent absence, and I feel the same. Their demeanor is more calm. They are more considerate, more caring and more loving towards one another and to me. They are excelling at life and will continue to do so without the instability, disrespect, aggressive behavior and poor choices they witnessed by someone they once looked up to.

In her response, Anker also indicated that she had petitioned for a protection order. To that end, on May 20, 2019, a commissioner entered a one-year order protecting Anker, J.D.W., and J.O.W. from Ponsaran. The protection order was expressly made "subject to any parenting plan / further order" in the pending de facto parentage proceeding.

¶5 On August 5, 2019, Ponsaran filed a request for court review regarding his petition. Together with his request, Ponsaran filed a notice for hearing setting his request for review for consideration without oral argument on August 20, 2019. Ponsaran also filed multiple witness declarations describing Ponsaran's interactions with the children.

¶6 On August 16, 2019, Anker filed a legal memorandum requesting dismissal of Ponsaran's petition. Anker also filed her own declaration and attached copies of her earlier petition for a protection order as well as certain documents filed in the protection order proceeding.

¶7 On August 21, 2019, the trial court entered an "Order After Review of Petition for De Facto Parentage" dismissing Ponsaran's petition. In its order, the court concluded that Ponsaran "has not alleged sufficient facts to meet the requirements for a finding of de facto parentage." (Emphasis omitted.) The court also entered the following "[o]ther [f]indings":

RCW 26.26A.440 requires that [Ponsaran] demonstrate that the relationship between him and the children is in the best interest of the children. In her Response to the Petition for De Facto Parentage, dated May 1, 2019, [Anker] states that [Ponsaran] has a complete disregard for her wishes and despises her. She states that the children have witnessed [Ponsaran] being aggressive toward her and her mother. She states that [Ponsaran] lacks mental, physical, emotional and financial stability, and that she has never known him to have a stable job. She states that [Ponsaran] abuses alcohol, narcotics and steroids and that it is not safe for the children to be around him. She states that [Ponsaran] is using the children to try to control her. Finally, she states that the children's behavior has improved, and that they are kinder and more considerate since not having contact with [Ponsaran]. In his declaration dated July 12, 2019, [Ponsaran] does not address any of [Anker]’s allegations, and instead states that he has "no interest in speaking publicly about [his] private life..." [Ponsaran] submitted evidence, including many declarations, regarding his close relationship with the children. However, none of this evidence specifically addresses the mother's allegations. [Ponsaran] further indicates in his declaration that [Anker] obtained an Order of Protection against him. The court takes judicial notice of the Order for Protection .... The Order for Protection protects both the mother and the children, and prohibits Mr. Ponsaran from having any contact with the children "subject to any parenting plan/further order in ... [the de facto parentage action]." The court finds that [Ponsaran] has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that [it] is in the best interest of the children to continue a relationship with him based on [Anker]’s unrefuted allegations

...