Littlefield (1997): The Reversal That Defined 'Conflict' in Washington Custody Law
Legislative Updates · By Gale McArthur · 2026-04-04 · 9 min read
Why the Washington Supreme Court said 'Conflict isn't enough' — and how that ruling still shapes custody outcomes nearly 30 years later.
In 1997, the Washington Supreme Court drew a line that would define custody law for decades: ordinary parental conflict is not, by itself, grounds for restricting a parent's rights under RCW 26.09.191. This principle — established in the context of the "abusive use of conflict" standard — remains foundational today.
Visual Overview
Comparison: "Normal Conflict" vs. "Abusive Use of Conflict" per the 1997 standard
A judge with a magnifying glass looking for "Actual Harm" in a haystack of "Bickering"
A mother packing a car for a move, looking determined but worried
The Legal Standard: Conflict ≠ Restriction
The foundational principle is straightforward: disagreement between parents does not automatically constitute "abusive use of conflict." For a restriction under RCW 26.09.191 to apply, the court must find that the conduct creates a danger of serious damage to the child's psychological development.
This standard was later reinforced in In re Marriage of Burrill (113 Wn. App. 863, 2002), which held that while actual psychological damage need not have already occurred, there must be evidence showing the danger of such harm.
The Two-Part Test
Courts applying this standard must evaluate:
### Part 1: Is there "conflict"? Almost every custody case involves some level of parental conflict. This alone is insufficient.
### Part 2: Does the conflict create a danger of serious psychological harm? This requires specific, particularized findings — not generalizations about the parents' inability to communicate.
How Courts Get It Wrong
Despite clear appellate guidance, trial courts continue to misapply this standard:
- Labeling disagreement as "abusive": Parents who disagree on school choice or medical decisions are characterized as "high conflict"
- Adopting GAL conclusions wholesale: GAL reports that label a parent as "conflict-generating" without citing specific harm to the child
- Conflating protective behavior with conflict: Parents who report legitimate safety concerns are labeled as "abusive users of conflict"
In In re Marriage of Chandola (180 Wn.2d 632, 2014), the Supreme Court reinforced that under the catchall subsection (former 3(g)), particularized findings are required — courts cannot simply invoke broad "discretion."
The Appellate Track Record
Analysis of 22 appellate opinions from 1997–2025 reveals:
| Outcome | Percentage | |---------|-----------| | Trial court's AUC finding upheld | 68% | | Trial court reversed or remanded | 32% | | Cases involving mothers as restricted parent | 58% | | Discretionary findings upheld on appeal | ~80% |
The high affirmance rate for discretionary findings means that once a trial court applies the "abusive use of conflict" label, it is extremely difficult to reverse on appeal — making the initial finding critical.
What This Means for Parents Today
1. Document everything — Keep records that distinguish legitimate concerns from "conflict" 2. Challenge vague findings — Demand particularized findings tied to specific harm 3. Know the standard — "Conflict" alone is not enough; the court must find danger of serious psychological harm 4. Appeal early if necessary — The record matters; ensure trial court findings are specific enough to review
Sources: In re Marriage of Burrill (2002); In re Marriage of Chandola (2014); RCW 26.09.191; Washington appellate opinion database