io me ON OD NW BP WH NY

°°

 

 

1.

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING
In re:

Petitioner: No. 20-3-03830-3 SEA

VERONIKA GOODNIGHT, — . .
Findings and Conclusions re: Parenting
And Respondent: Plan, Termination of a Committed Intimate

MATHEW RALIDAK. Relationship
Clerk's Action required 1, 5

Findings and Conclusions re: Parenting Plan, Termination of a
Committed Intimate Relationship and Attorney’s Fees

Money Judgment Summary
Summarize any money judgments in the table below.
Judgment for | Debtor's name | Creditor’s name Amount | Interest
(person who (person who must |
must pay be paid) |
money) |
House Sale Proceeds Mathew Ralidak Veronika
I _ Goodnight $60,776.40
_ ATTORNEY FEES Mathew Ralidak | Veronika $6,000.00
| Goodnight

| Yearly Interest Rate: 6% (12% unless otherwise listed) _ |
| Lawyer (name): Greta Jibbensmith, WSBA #41737represents (name):Petitioner/Veronika Goodnight

| Lawyer (name): Margaret Bender, WSBA #11948 represents (name): Respondent/Mathew Ralidak

2. Basis for findings and conclusions

These findings are based on the evidence produced at trial in January 2022, where the
following individuals testified: Petitioner, Respondent, Matthew Jolly, Vicki Chapman,
Josef Stanton, Deborah Oaks, Diana Muggli, Heidi Stafford, Dina Fix, Monica Bonilla
Gonzalez, Shawna Mokler, Dr. Michael Oreskovich, Amisha Zuber, Ann Ralidak and
Monica Gallerneau

Findings and Conclusions re Lawgate
Parenting Plan, Termination of a
Committed Intimate Relationship, nae Pecseaei tay NEISbie 30)
and CR 11 Sanctions Seattle, WA 98125 "
p. 1 of 7 206-365-5500 » www.lawgate net

 

oO we IN DN fF WN

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25

 

 

V

The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
3. Notice

The Respondent has appeared in this case and has responded to the Petition.

4. Jurisdiction over the children (RCW 26.27.201 - .221, .231, .261, .271)

EX] The court can approve a Parenting Plan because (check all that apply; if a box
applies to all of the children, you may write “the children” instead of listing names):

&] Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction — A Washington court has already made a
custody order or parenting plan for the children, and the court still has authority
to make other orders for the children.

] Home state jurisdiction — Washington is the children’s home state because
(check all that apply):

EX] The children lived in Washington with a parent or someone acting as a
parent for at least the 6 months just before this case was filed, or if the
children were less than 6 months old when the case was filed, they had lived
in Washington with a parent or someone acting as a parent since birth.

KK] The children do not have another home state.

Dr. Michael Oreskovich is a highly credentialed psychiatrist who was appointed to evaluate
the Petitioner's mental health function. Dr. Oreskovich’s testimony was very credible. Matt
Jolly, the Parenting Evaluator, is a very experienced family law attorney, mediator, and
investigator. He was thorough and thoughtful and balanced in both his report and testimony.
It is important to note that he was not appointed as a substance abuse evaluator nor as a
mental health expert. Mr. Jolly’s testimony was very credible.

Shawna Mokler, who has a MA in Addiction Studies was called upon to address evaluations
that SeaMar had conducted. Throughout her testimony she stayed in her lane. She was not
the one who did the intake or did the assessments, but when concerns were raised she
suggested that new evaluations occur. This increased her credibility. Monica Bonilla
Gonzalez, who has an MA in Social Work is Petitioner's current therapist at SeaMar, The
Court found persuasive as true that Ms. Mokler was acting as a counselor, not as an
evaluator, and thus was remaining true to her role.

Multiple lay witnesses testified as well including: Diani Muggli (a friend of the Petitioner's)
Heidi Stafford (former roommate and continued friend of the Petitioner's) and Deborah Oakes
(a neighborhood friend). The Court found their testimony sincere and honest.

Vicki Chapman, who was in the home prior to the purchase of the home, also testified and
her testimony underscored the difference between the two parties. When asked about her
impressions of the two parties Ms. Chapman testified that she found the Petitioner outgoing,
full of energy and appropriately pointed out that there would be the normal chaos of having
young children. The same witness found that the Respondent was stiff and asked a lot of
questions which she interpreted as arrogance. The Court does not find the Respondent

Findings and Conclusions re Lawgate
Parenting Plan, Termination of a BUGNI & ASSOC. FAMILY LAW
Committed Intimate Relationship, 31399 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300
and CR 11 Sanctions Seattle, WA 98125
p.20f7 206-365-5500 » www.lawgate net

 

oO 0 wm NY DWM BP WwW NY =

RN NN NN HY ee Be Be we eB Be Se
A FR 8 YN |= S Oo wm NI DW BF WN =|

 

 

arrogant. The Court finds the Respondent reserved, quiet and that’s the difference between
the two parties. The Petitioner is ebullient and vivacious, and the Respondent is reserved
and quiet. That does not make them bad people.

Josef Stanton’s testimony regarding the potential nature of his relationship with the Petitioner
was contradicted by the Petitioner's testimony regarding the potential of the relationship
between the two of them, but this contradiction did not move the Court’s needle in any
distinct way.

Ann Ralidak, the stepmother of the Respondent, was honest and open. Her testimony was
credible. Her perceptions are her personal opinions.

Amisha Zubar, a godparent to one of the children, a former confidante of the Petitioner's, and
a current friend of the Respondent's testified to a series of very serious allegations against
the Petitioner and the suicidality issue was the biggest concern for the Court. Amisha Zubar
testified that on 10 separate occasions the Petitioner made concerning statements. When
this Court inquired as to what she (Ms. Zubar) did when her best friend (at the time) said she
was suicidal, Ms. Zubar responded, “I told her | did not think that was a good idea.” To this
Court, given the fact that Ms. Zubar does care for the children, | find it more credible that she
did not think this was an imminent suicide threat because her (Ms. Zubar’s) conduct did not
comport with someone who believes children are in danger.

Monica Gallerneau, is the fiancé of the Respondent. The Court found her honest and
credible in her presentation.

The Petitioner has repeatedly been referred to as lively, vivacious, curious, friendly. The
word transparency was used a lot and the Court sincerely finds that her testimony was
sincere in her presentation; however, Mr. Jolly eloquently underscored in his testimony, that
he believed she was sincere but in many of her accusations there was no reasonable basis
for her belief. Another quote of Mr. Jolly’s “her negative views are disproportionate to what
the evidence shows.” There were many statements made that a very successful career was
thrown away to follow the Respondent but the Petitioner’s Social Security Statement does not!
support that interpretation. In 2014 the Petitioner made $670.

Another example of the comments not equating to the reality of the situation regards the end
of the relationship. The testimony was that in the end of December 2019 the Petitioner left
home to stay with her friends. The Respondent had a business trip to go on a few days after
that and was depending on the Petitioner for childcare. The word “flee” was repeatedly used,
but the Court did not find that the Petitioner fled, the Court found that the Petitioner left. The
Petitioner testified that she fled, but there is no evidence to show any danger much less
lethality. The Court finds that the Petitioner left the home.

The Respondent presented as reserved and affectionate to his children and he takes
excellent care of them. On January 6, 2021, when he missed meetings due to the
Respondent's refusal to provide the children for his scheduled time, he was laid off and that
makes sense. When people do not show up for work they are fired, however he has since
been rehired by the same company. He was generally concerned for his children. His tax
returns confirm that he has not been truthful throughout the process. It underscores the fact
that both of these parties have been willing to embellish their facts when it suits their needs.

Findings and Conclusions re Lawgate
Parenting Plan, Termination of a
Committed Intimate Relationship, roan eeetel vey Nessus yb
and CR 11 Sanctions Seattle, WA 98125 ‘
p. 3 of 7 206-365-5500 » www.lawgate net

 

Nu

xo wm OD OB

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

 

 

The parties met at a chance encounter at a club and there was a “Hollywood” moment. They
did not know each other or date each other. They immediately hopped into the deep end of
the pool. It’s not a surprise that months or years later they look back on it and decided that
they were no longer the partners they needed. So what kept them together? The children. It!
is without question that both of these parties love their children immensely. That's the only
glue that kept these people together for as long as they did.

The Children are better off if the parties are at peace. The court needs to consider the
relative strength of the relationship the children have with both parents. Both parties have a
strong relationship with the children.

Mr. Jolly found, through the scope of his investigation, that the children are healthy, well
nourished, balanced, and curious. Both parents say the other is poisoning the well, but the
objective evidence shows that the children are doing well. The agreement of the parties is
another important factor. The Respondent testified that he did not want 50/50 but for two
years the parties have operated in a joint residential plan. Before that the mother was caring
for the children while the father travelled. This Court finds that the caregiver of young
children in our society are not given the credit they deserve. At the height of the Petitioner’s
imbalance, you have three children in diapers, whose needs are individual, one could be
hungry, one could bored children are not hungry at the same time, that is the reality of life.
The use of alcohol was inappropriate by the Petitioner, the court is satisfied that issue has
been addressed. Both parents have done parenting functions, but the majority of the day-
to-day child-rearing prior to separation in January 2020 was done by the Petitioner.

a. The relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each
parent. Each of the parents has a solid relationship with the children.

The agreement of the parties. The parties had been exercising a week on/week off
schedule from January 2020 to the present. The Respondent stated in his notice of
Respondent testified that he did not want 50/50 but for two years the parties have
operated in a joint residential plan.

Each parent's ability to perform parenting functions. The father works from home. It
is expected that the mother will work outside the home in the future.__ It is clear that
the Petitioner performed the majority of the childcare responsibilities as the
Respondent worked outside the home. Post-separation the Petitioner has
continued to be the one to spearhead the children’s educational and medical needs.
The Respondent admitted that he would need to seek outside help if he were to be
the primary parent. It is a close call as both parents can perform parenting function.

Ir

Ie

[2

The emotional needs and developmental level of the child. The children are doing
well. The parents with very different upbringings and personalities have produced
three wonderful children.

|e

The child’s relationship with siblings, other important people and involvement with
their environment. The older two children are enrolled and are participating in
school. Due to COVID the father has had less of an opportunity to foster the
children’s relationships with others in the Everett community, by way of COVID so
there are less opportunities to form bonds in Everett. The children are bonded to

Findings and Conclusions re Lawgate

Parenting Plan, Termination of a BUGNI & ASSOC, FAMILY LAW
Committed Intimate Relationship, 34300 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300
and CR 11 Sanctions Seattle, WA 98125

p.40f7 206-365-5500 » www.lawgate.net

 

Yo wm ND WA fF

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

 

 

their friends in Carnation and the two older children are participating in school in
Carnation.

The wishes of the parent or the mature child. Both parents wish that the children
would reside with them primarily. The children are not sufficiently mature enough to
weigh in on this.

imal

g. Each parent's employment schedule. The Respondent is gainfully employed
though working remotely. The Petitioner will necessarily have to begin work in a
more traditional manner outside the home.

The Court was presented with stability factors suggesting that the Respondent was the more
stable of the two parents because of his housing situation. The Court found that
Respondent's living situation was just as tenuous as the Petitioner's as the Respondent is
dependent upon the continued viability of his relationship with Monica Gallerneau to maintain
his housing. Both parties are renting. The Petitioner has a lease and the Respondent does
not. Housing size is not being considered by the Court.

The court found this to be a close case and finds both parents to be suitable parents. .

The Court is not imposing RCW 26.09.191 limitations. The alcohol use was more of a
symptom of the unhappiness that this Petitioner was going through; her story is not done.
She will need to continue to be proactive. The evidence does not comport to the allegations
made and .191 restrictions are not warranted. The Petitioner has a battle plan in place, she
has quit using substances, quit making negative social media posts, and is pursuing healthy
coping mechanisms. The testimony of the experts all pointed to the Petitioner having
proactively dealt with her issues and to having healthy coping mechanisms in place. Monica
Bonilla Gonzalez testified that the Petitioner was ready to graduate from counseling and Dr.
Oreskovich found that the Petitioner did not suffer from any mental health or substance use
disorder. In an abundance of caution the Court is ordering the Petitioner to continue to
undergo 24 months of additional counseling as outlined in the Parenting Plan.

Committed Intimate Relationship. The Pennington Court sets out the following factors to
consider when determining whether or not a committed intimate relationship existed:
continuity of cohabitation, duration of relationship, purpose of the relationship, pooling of
resources, and intent of the parties. The parties leapt into the deep end and their
commitment was for a family. There was a sufficient period of time that these parties lived
together in a marital-like relationship.

The couple purchased a van together with a 7 year financing term, made representations to
the community that they were husband and wife, lived together continuously from 2014 —
2020, and formed a family by having three young children together. The young age of the
children and closeness in time they were born illustrates the Petitioner and the Respondent’s
commitment to each other and intention to act as a community. There was an intention to
make a go of it as a community. The Court finds there was a committed intimate relationship
from August 2014 and ended in January 2020 when the Petitioner moved out.

Findings and Conclusions re Lawgate
Parenting Plan, Termination of a BUGNI & ASSOC. FAMILY LAW
Committed Intimate Relationship, 11300 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300
and CR 11 Sanctions Seattle, WA 98125
p.50f7 206-365-5500 » www lawgate net

 

The overarching premise behind the case law surrounding CIR is the recognition that there
should be a fair division of property. It’s not mathematical preciseness. The Respondent
was the breadwinner and the Petitioner was the stay at home caregiver. The dynamic
necessarily made the Petitioner dependent upon the Respondent financially.

There was no clear evidence of any separate property being used to purchase the home.
The only clear evidence was the $5,000 loan from Amisha Zubar to the community for the
down payment that both parties and Ms. Zubar testified to. The Respondent's testimony,
was not clear. He said he liquidated a 401(k) but the court cannot find a per se contribution
of separate property. There was no objective evidence that the Respondent used separate
property to purchase the home. The 401(k) statement covered a period of years and did not
show separate loans or dates. The house closing statement showed different numbers.

The $30,000 loaned by Monica increased the house sale proceeds and that money was
repaid. The house sale proceeds were $131,294.00. $30,000 was a legitimate loan to
Monica, leaving the net sale proceeds at $101,294.00. The Court finds that it would be fair
and equitable for a judgment for 60% of those proceeds to be given to the Petitioner. The
Court makes the finding that under the circumstances it is equitable for the interest rate to be
6%.

The Respondent has said that the money has been spent. At the time the original Temporary
Orders were put into place the Respondent was employed and the Petitioner was not. He
was ordered to pay $8500 in fees which were paid from the house proceeds. Those fees
were not subject to reallocation. Nor was the order to pay Matt Jolly’s fee subject to
reallocation.

The Respondent is responsible for the Space Coast Credit Union Van Debt associated with
account ending in x5621.

Attorney’s Fees. The Court found that the CIR required an entire day and a half of trial,
solely on that issue. In regard to attorney fees, the father had to reluctantly concede there
was a CIR. The court awards attorney fees in the amount of $6,000

5. Money Judgment

Judgment for Debtor’s name Creditor’s name |= Amount | Interest
(person who (person who must
must pay be paid)
. _money) |
House Sale Proceeds Mathew Ralidak | Veronika $
Goodnight 60,776.40 |
CR 11 Sanctions Mathew Ralidak | Veronika $6,000.00 |
Goodnight _ |

Yearly Interest Rate: 6% for house sale proceeds. The attorney’s fees shall accure interest at 12%
| Lawyer (name): Greta Jibbensmith, WSBA #41737represents (name):Petitioner/Veronika Goodnight

| Lawyer (name): Margaret Bender, WSBA #11948 represents (name): Respondent/Mathew Ralidak

 

 

Findings and Conclusions re
Parenting Plan, Termination of a
Committed intimate Relationship,

Lawgate
BUGNI & ASSOC. FAMILY LAW

 

 

and CR 11 Sanctions
p. 6 of 7

11300 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98125
206-365-5500 » www.lawgate.net

 

oO wm IY DH PF WN

NR YW NY NR NY NY BY ee eB eB ewe ewe ewe eH
WA FS 8 ND |= Sow NI A WE WN FE TS

 

 

6. Other findings or conclusions

Maud 3, 2022— :

Date J cate TT
Leonid Ronomarchuk

Findings and Conclusions re
Parenting Plan, Termination of a
Committed Intimate Relationship,

and CR 11 Sanctions
p. 7 of 7

Lawgate

BUGNI & ASSOC. FAMILY LAW
11300 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98125

206-365-5500 » www.lawgate.net

 

