The Washington Court of Appeals upheld a December 2024 parenting plan and property division in the divorce case of Benjamin A. Mavy and Megan Mae Coelho. The court ruled that Mavy's challenges to the parenting plan and relocation order were moot due to a new parenting plan established in May 2026. This ruling affects the couple's five minor children and clarifies issues surrounding parenting time and property distribution.

In the case, Mavy and Coelho were married in 2002 and had seven children together. They lived in Wyoming before moving to Washington, where their marriage began to dissolve. Mavy filed for divorce in November 2022, seeking a parenting plan that would limit Coelho's rights and allow him to relocate with the children to Wyoming. The trial court initially issued a temporary parenting plan in March 2024, which was in effect during the divorce proceedings.

During the dissolution trial, the court heard testimony and evaluations from experts, including Dr. Steve Tutty, who assessed the children's living situations and parental capabilities. The trial court ultimately issued a final divorce order in December 2024, which included a parenting plan that did not impose limitations on either parent under Washington law. Mavy was granted custody of the three younger children, while the two older children were to live with Coelho.

The court also addressed Mavy's request to relocate to Wyoming with the children, which was denied. Mavy later filed a motion for contempt against Coelho, claiming she had violated the parenting plan. However, the trial court found no evidence of bad faith on Coelho's part and declined to find her in contempt.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals noted that Mavy's challenges to the December 2024 parenting plan were moot because a new parenting plan had been established in May 2026, allowing him to relocate with the children. The court stated, "Mavy's challenges to the parenting plan and relocation order are moot in light of a new parenting plan and relocation order entered in 2026." This decision effectively nullified Mavy's previous arguments regarding the parenting plan and relocation.

The court also addressed the division of property, including the Sequim house awarded to Coelho. Mavy argued that the trial court had erred by not requiring Coelho to refinance the mortgage on the house, but the court found that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision. The court stated that the trial court was in the best position to determine what was fair and that its decision was supported by substantial evidence.

The ruling clarifies the legal standards for parenting plans and property division in divorce cases, particularly regarding the authority of trial courts to make decisions based on the best interests of children and the financial circumstances of the parties involved. It also highlights the importance of effective relief in appellate cases, as the court ruled that many of Mavy's challenges were moot due to changes in the circumstances of the case.

Looking forward, the new parenting plan and relocation order will govern the custody arrangements for Mavy and Coelho's children. While Mavy's previous challenges to the December 2024 orders were dismissed, the court's ruling sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly regarding the interpretation of parenting time and relocation requests.

The case may still be subject to further legal actions, but as of now, the appellate court's decision stands. The court filing did not provide information regarding any potential appeals or related cases pending.