In Re Matthew Flax V Hao Ding

Key Facts

Issues

• Ding claimed the court improperly linked obligor/obligee designation to the parenting plan. The court clarified that the designation was based on financial resources, not residential time, and that without a parenting plan change, there was no basis to modify support obligations.
• The court upheld the fee award to Flax, noting Ding's petition lacked legal basis and he couldn't show inability to pay. The award was deemed within the court's discretion.
• Ding argued the court speculated about potential future changes in the parenting plan. The court explained that altering the obligor/obligee roles requires a parenting plan modification, and since none was filed, the denial was justified based on existing procedures.
• Ding argued the court incorrectly designated Matthew Flax as the primary residential parent. The court held that since Ding did not challenge this in the trial court, it could not be reviewed on appeal. The child support order did not explicitly name Flax as primary, but the court's ruling was based on the existing parenting plan.
• The court determined that Hao Ding failed to demonstrate a substantial change in his financial circumstances since the original child support order. The court found that Ding's parents continued to support him, and his employment status had not changed enough to justify modification.
• The court found that Ding remains the obligor parent under RCW 26.18.020 because the designation is based on the duty of support, not the payment amount. The order set support to zero but didn't relieve his duty, so the designation was correct.
• Ding requested appellate fees but failed to cite applicable law or show entitlement. The court denied the request as he didn't prevail and his claim of financial disadvantage contradicted unchallenged findings.

Holdings

• The court affirmed the denial of Ding's petition to modify child support, finding he failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances. The trial court's unchallenged findings that Ding's parents financially supported him and that he voluntarily remained unemployed were accepted as verities.
• The court rejected Ding's claim that the denial was based on speculation about future parenting plan modifications. It correctly noted that obligor designation changes require a valid petition to modify the parenting plan itself.
• Ding's request for appellate fees was denied because he failed to cite applicable law, did not prevail on appeal, and his claim of being financially disadvantaged contradicted unchallenged findings.
• The court emphasized that modifying the obligor/obligee designation requires a change in financial circumstances or a parenting plan modification. Ding's petition lacked sufficient evidence to warrant either.
• The fee award to Flax was upheld. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding Ding's petition lacked legal basis and his financial claims were not supported by evidence.
• The court declined to review Ding's argument regarding the primary residential parent designation, as he did not raise this issue in the trial court. The child support order did not explicitly name Flax as the primary residential parent.
• Ding remained the obligor parent despite a zero-dollar child support obligation. The court clarified that the obligor designation is based on duty of support, not payment amount, and his financial resources were considered in the original order.

Remedies

• The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances to justify modifying the child support order.
• The court ordered that the opinion filed on August 1, 2022, be withdrawn and replaced with a substitute unpublished opinion.
• The trial court ordered Hao Ding to pay $4,774.50 in attorney fees to Matthew Flax, finding Ding's motion lacked legal basis. The appellate court upheld this award.
• The court denied Ding's request for appellate attorney fees under RAP 18.1, as he failed to cite applicable law, did not prevail on appeal, and his claim of financial disadvantage conflicted with unchallenged findings.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The party seeking to modify child support has the burden to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances. The court found Ding failed to meet this burden by not providing sufficient evidence of changed financial resources.
• The trial court's discretion in awarding attorney fees was upheld. Ding's request for fees was denied as his petition lacked legal basis and he failed to show unreasonableness in the court's decision.

Precedent Name

• In re Custody of A.T.
• In re Marriage of Casey
• In re Parentage of A.L.
• Burch v. Burch
• In re Marriage of Battista and Saha
• In re Marriage of Blickenstaff
• In re Marriage of Moody
• In re Marriage of Arvey
• In re Marriage of Bresnahan
• Mueller v. Wells

Cited Statute

• Revised Code of Washington
• Rules of Appellate Procedure

Judge Name

• Judge Chung
• HAZELRIGG, J.
• Judge Bik

Passage Text

• An obligor parent is ... duty of support or duty of maintenance.
• The court held that Ding ... no legal basis for his request to modify.
• The party seeking modification ... even in the face of a total lack of income.