The Washington Court of Appeals has upheld the trial court's decision in the divorce case of Bolortsetseg Gantumur v. Amartsengel Sanjaa, No. 88251-1. The ruling, issued on November 2, 2026, affects Gantumur and Sanjaa, who are both citizens of Mongolia and have three children together. The court's decision is significant as it addresses issues of domestic violence, child custody, and property distribution following the couple's separation.

In this case, Gantumur and Sanjaa were married in Chicago in 2006 and moved to Washington in 2007. Their marriage faced turmoil, primarily due to Sanjaa's alleged domestic violence and issues related to his gambling and drinking. The couple separated when Sanjaa was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in July 2019. Following his deportation to Mongolia, Gantumur filed for divorce on October 12, 2020, and the court proceedings unfolded amidst ongoing disputes over custody and property.

The trial court found that Sanjaa had subjected Gantumur to domestic violence during their marriage, including a severe incident where he broke her nose. The court also noted that their eldest child, Anand, witnessed the violence and refused to visit Sanjaa. Gantumur's efforts to protect her children included temporarily sending two of them to Mongolia amid the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this decision led to further complications regarding custody and communication.

After Gantumur filed for dissolution, she was granted a default decree on April 7, 2021, when Sanjaa failed to respond. The couple later agreed to vacate the final orders and set the matter for trial, which took place from December 2024 to January 2025. The trial court ultimately sided with Gantumur, finding her testimony credible and Sanjaa's not credible. The court adopted Gantumur's proposed parenting plan and property distribution.

The court ruled that all three children would primarily reside with Gantumur in the United States, with Sanjaa having limited visitation rights. It also imposed restrictions on Sanjaa under RCW 26.09.191, citing his history of domestic violence and abandonment of the children. The court ordered Sanjaa to pay child support and awarded Gantumur the family condominium while assigning her responsibility for the mortgage.

In its ruling, the court stated, "The trial court found that whereas Gantumur was credible, Sanjaa was not credible and was motivated by his desire to retaliate against Gantumur and to make more money." The court also noted that Gantumur had made significant efforts to return Sanjaa's property to him in Mongolia, further supporting her claims during the proceedings.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding the parenting plan and property distribution, emphasizing that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court also addressed Sanjaa's arguments against the effective date of the dissolution, stating that the trial court acted within its discretion to avoid issues related to bigamy, as Gantumur remarried shortly after the dissolution.

The ruling has implications for future cases involving domestic violence and child custody, establishing a precedent for how courts may handle similar situations. The court's emphasis on the credibility of witnesses and the importance of protecting children from potentially harmful environments underscores the legal system's commitment to safeguarding the welfare of children in divorce proceedings.

Looking ahead, Sanjaa may seek further legal recourse, including the possibility of appealing the decision. However, the appellate court's ruling appears to solidify Gantumur's position regarding custody and property distribution. The court filing did not provide information on whether there are any related cases pending.