The Washington Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of Benjamin A. Mavy v. Megan Mae Coelho, affirming the trial court's decision regarding a parenting plan dispute. The court upheld the trial court's denial of Mavy's contempt motion against Coelho and awarded her attorney fees related to the motion for reconsideration. This ruling affects Mavy and Coelho, who share custody of their minor children, and clarifies the enforcement of parenting plans in Washington state.

The case stems from a long-standing dispute between Mavy and Coelho regarding their parenting plan for their seven children. Mavy filed a motion for contempt after Coelho allegedly failed to comply with the parenting plan. The trial court denied the motion, leading Mavy to appeal the decision. The court's ruling is significant as it addresses the complexities of enforcing parenting plans and the responsibilities of each parent.

Benjamin A. Mavy and Megan Mae Coelho were married in 2002 and had seven children together. They lived in Wyoming for approximately ten years before relocating to Sequim, Washington. In 2021, while still in Wyoming, they established an irrevocable trust for their children, funded with various assets, including a house and proceeds from a business sale. Mavy retained control over the trust's management.

In November 2022, Mavy filed for divorce. Following a trial in August 2024, the court issued a final parenting plan in December 2024. The plan designated that the three youngest children would primarily reside with Mavy, while the two older children would live with Coelho. The court also granted Mavy sole authority to make major decisions regarding the younger children's education and healthcare.

On May 7, 2025, Mavy filed a motion for contempt, claiming Coelho failed to inform him of medical visits for the younger children and did not make their son, N.M., available for visitation. Coelho responded by stating that she had taken the children to urgent care when they showed signs of illness and that she encouraged N.M. to attend visitation.

The trial court held a contempt hearing on May 16, 2025, but did not hear live testimony. Instead, the court engaged the parties in a discussion. Ultimately, the trial court declined to find Coelho in contempt, stating that she acted within her rights as a parent to seek medical care for the children and that she was not responsible for N.M.'s reluctance to visit Mavy.

In its ruling, the trial court noted, "the simple truth is that for reasons that are not fully understood, [N.M.] does not want to visit his father," indicating that Coelho was fulfilling her duty to facilitate visitation as outlined in the parenting plan. The court emphasized that Mavy had not demonstrated Coelho's bad faith in her actions.

Following the denial of his contempt motion, Mavy filed for reconsideration, which the trial court also denied. The court awarded Coelho $180 in attorney fees for her response to Mavy's motion for reconsideration, stating that Mavy should not impose financial burdens on Coelho for what it considered a meritless motion.

The Court of Appeals reviewed Mavy's arguments, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the contempt motion or in awarding attorney fees. The court noted that Mavy had the burden to prove Coelho's bad faith, which he failed to do. The court stated, "A parent seeking a contempt order to compel another parent to comply with a parenting plan must establish the contemnor’s bad faith by a preponderance of the evidence."

This ruling is significant for parents navigating similar disputes regarding parenting plans. It reinforces the necessity for clear communication and cooperation between parents and highlights the importance of understanding the legal standards for contempt in family law cases.

Moving forward, this case may serve as a reference for future disputes involving parenting plans in Washington state. It underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that children's best interests are prioritized while balancing the rights and responsibilities of both parents.

As for what’s next, Mavy has the option to appeal the ruling to a higher court, but details regarding any potential appeals were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending at this time.