IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the Marriage of: No. 80296-8-I MAHALINGAM LAKSHMANAN, DIVISION ONE Appellant, and UNPUBLISHED OPINION SEETHALAKSHMI MAHALINGAM, Respondent. MANN, C.J. — Mahalingam Lakshmanan appeals the trial court’s entry of a parenting plan. He argues that the trial court erred by (1) limiting his residential time, (2) considering the recommendations of a court-appointed social worker, (3) granting sole educational decision-making authority to the mother, and (4) ordering him to complete a domestic violence class for dads. We affirm. I. Mahalingam 1 and Seethalakshmi Mahalingam entered into an arranged marriage in India in July 2012 and had one child in April 2013. 2 1 We use the parties’ first names for clarity. No disrespect is intended. 2 The pertinent facts are set forth in the trial court’s uncontested findings of fact. Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal. In re Marriage of Rounds, 4 Wn. App. 2d 801, 804, 423 P.3d 895 (2018). We recite only those facts necessary to address the issues raised on appeal. Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material. No. 80296-8-I/2 Soon after their wedding, Mahalingam began to criticize Seethalakshmi’s manner of speech and dress as not being up to his family’s standards and his family insulted her for not knowing how to cook. Mahalingam yelled at Seethalakshmi and struck her during the pregnancy. He also took Seethalakshmi’s mobile phone away and restricted her ability to call friends. The couple moved to Washington in May 2013. Once in Washington, Mahalingam withheld the immigration paperwork that Seethalakshmi needed to work in the United States and did not give her access to the family’s bank accounts. He devoted a great deal of attention to controlling everything in their family. According to Seethalakshmi, the physical abuse she had experienced infrequently in India now occurred about once a week, which included Mahalingam pushing her and twisting her hands. In 2014, as their child’s one-year birthday approached, Seethalakshmi told her parents that she could not take it anymore, so her father bought tickets for her and the child to return to India after the birthday party. After the child’s party, a big fight ensued. Mahalingam believed that Seethalakshmi’s desire to return to India with the child meant the marriage was irretrievably broken, slapped her on the face, and refused to produce the child’s passport. Mahalingam turned over the passport after Seethalakshmi’s father threatened to call the police. Seethalakshmi and the child departed to India in May 2014. Seethalakshmi and Mahalingam Facetimed each other when she was back in India, but Mahalingam never asked to Facetime with the child and indicated that he wanted her to “change.” Meanwhile, Mahalingam’s parents and family in India were denigrating Seethalakshmi’s reputation by telling people she came to India without -2- No. 80296-8-I/3 Mahalingam’s permission. In order repair the marriage and return to Washington, Seethalakshmi and her parents had to apologize to the business community, apologize to Mahalingam’s family ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals