Lundquist v. Avey - Parenting Plan Appeal Affirmed
Summary
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed the trial court's final parenting plan establishing a residential schedule for two minor children. The appellate court declined to reach the merits of the appellant's claims because she failed to provide an adequate appellate record and did not support her arguments with citations to legal authority as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
“In determining the best interests of a child for residential scheduling purposes, the trial court considers several statutory factors, including the relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent, the agreements of the parties, and the emotional needs and development level of the child.”
What changed
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final parenting plan establishing a residential schedule for the parties' two minor children. The appellate court declined to review the merits because the appellant, proceeding pro se, deliberately provided only a partial report of proceedings excluding the respondent's case and failed to support her assignments of error with legal argument or citations to authority as required by RAP 10.3(a)(6). The court also declined to consider new issues raised for the first time in the reply brief.
For pro se litigants and family law practitioners in Washington appellate proceedings, this case serves as a reminder that Washington courts hold all appellants to the same procedural standards regardless of representation status. Failure to provide a complete appellate record or to cite legal authority in support of assignments of error will result in dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds, regardless of the underlying merits.
Archived snapshot
Apr 21, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Kristina L. Lundquist V. Keith M. Avey
Court of Appeals of Washington
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 88170-1
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Lead Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
KRISTINA LINN LUNDQUIST, No. 88170-1-I
Appellant, DIVISION ONE
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
KEITH MITCHEL AVEY,
Respondent.
FELDMAN, J. — Kristina Lundquist, proceeding pro se, appeals the trial
court’s final parenting plan establishing a residential schedule for her two minor
children. Because Lundquist fails to provide an adequate record for review or
support her arguments with citations to authority, we decline to reach the merits of
her appeal and affirm the final parenting plan.
Lundquist argues the trial court was biased against her and failed to
determine the residential schedule in her case based on the best interests of her
children. In determining the best interests of a child for residential scheduling
purposes, the trial court considers several statutory factors, including the relative
strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent, the
agreements of the parties, and the emotional needs and development level of the
child. See RCW 26.09.187(3)(a), (i), (ii), (iv). This court reviews a trial court’s
No. 88170-1-I
ruling addressing such issues for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when a trial
court’s decision “is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.” In
re Marriage of Kovacs, 121 Wn.2d 795, 801, 854 P.2d 629 (1993).
While we recognize that Lundquist brings her appeal pro se, we “hold a pro
se litigant to the same standard as an attorney.” In re Est. of Little, 9 Wn. App. 2d
262, 274 n.4, 444 P.3d 23 (2019). Critical here, “the appellant bears the burden
of complying with the Rules of Appellate Procedure . . . and perfecting [their] record
on appeal so the reviewing court has before it all the evidence relevant to deciding
the issues before it.” Rhinevault v. Rhinevault, 91 Wn. App. 688, 692, 959 P.2d
687 (1998). Despite this requirement, Lundquist has provided a partial report of
proceedings that does not include the respondent’s case. And Lundquist explains
in her opening brief that this was a deliberate decision. Consequently, we cannot
assess whether the evidence supports the trial court’s decision, nor can we assess
whether the court properly considered the statutory factors under RCW
26.09.187(3)(a). As a result, we decline to reach the merits of her arguments.
Rhinevault, 91 Wn. App. at 692.
But even if Lundquist had provided an adequate record, she fails to
establish any entitlement to relief on appeal. An appellant must provide “argument
in support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal
authority and references to relevant parts of the record.” RAP 10.3(a)(6); Little, 9
Wn. App. 2d at 274 n.4. Here, however, Lundquist makes no argument in support
of her assignments of error and cites no legal authority in her opening brief. Such
“[p]assing treatment of an issue” and “lack of reasoned argument” does not merit
-2-
No. 88170-1-I
judicial consideration. In re Parental Rights to D.J.S., 12 Wn. App. 2d 1, 42, 456
P.3d 820 (2020), abrogated on other grounds by In re Dependency of G.J.A., 197
Wn.2d 868, 489 P.3d 631 (2021). Lundquist also attempts to raise new issues in
her reply brief, contrary to RAP 10.3(a)(6). We decline to consider those
arguments as well. See Bergerson v. Zurbano, 6 Wn. App. 2d 912, 927, 432 P.3d
850 (2018) (declining to address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief
“because the [respondent] would be prejudiced”).
Because Lundquist does not provide an adequate record for review or
support her assignments of error with argument and citations to legal authority, we
decline to reach the merits of her appeal. We therefore affirm the final parenting
plan.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
-3-
Named provisions
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Washington Court of Appeals Opinions (CourtListener)
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from WACA.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Washington Court of Appeals Opinions (CourtListener) publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.