Juliana S. Straight, V. Ethan H. Straight
Court
Unknown Court
Decided
July 14, 2025
Importance
34%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the Marriage of No. 86692-3-I JULIANA SALES STRAIGHT, DIVISION ONE Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION v. ETHAN HUNTER STRAIGHT, Respondent. HAZELRIGG, C.J. — Juliana Sales Straight appeals orders entered in the dissolution of her marriage to Ethan Hunter Straight and specifically challenges aspects of the parenting plan, child support order, and property division. She asserts that the trial court failed to consider the best interests of the child in the parenting plan, it erred by imputing her income to determine child support, and the division of property was not equitable. We disagree and affirm. FACTS Juliana Straight and Ethan Straight met online, and, after she came to the United States from Brazil, Juliana moved in with Ethan in 2013. 1 She gave birth to the couple’s only child, J., in 2014, and they married in 2016. 1 Because the parties share a last name, we refer to them by their first names for clarity and precision. No disrespect is intended. No. 86692-3-I/2 Juliana filed a petition for dissolution in July 2022. She deferred on providing a proposed parenting plan, asked for a child support award in accordance with state law, and for the court to order that each parent could claim J. as a dependent on their tax returns in alternating years. Ethan brought a motion for a temporary family law order in October 2022. He sought entry of his proposed temporary parenting plan and child support order. His declaration explained that Juliana had denied his request for a week on/week off parenting schedule and that, thus far, he had been limited to two days a week with their child. He asked for the court to implement his proposed residential schedule which Juliana had denied. Ethan acknowledged that he was the obligor parent based on his greater income, but requested a downward deviation that would reflect the proposed equal parenting time, and the fact that he was still paying half the mortgage on the family home despite having moved out. He also alleged that Juliana’s gross monthly income was $3,952.12, based on her deposits in the couple’s joint bank account prior to the dissolution. Juliana filed a response declaration and a surresponse declaration on November 4 and 7, respectively. She first sought entry of her proposed temporary parenting plan and temporary child support order based on her financial worksheets, an order appointing a parenting evaluator, and her proposed temporary order “regarding use of property and payment of household expenses and debts.” The second declaration contained allegations regarding disparaging remarks Ethan had purportedly made about Juliana in front of J. and in text correspondence with the child. Ethan objected to Juliana’s untimely submission -2- No. 86692-3-I/3 of the November 7 surresponse declaration, requested that it be stricken as such, and provided his own declaration which contained his own characterization of the relevant facts. He also submitted proposed child support worksheets and order, including his continued request for a downward deviation, and his proposed parenting plan. The superior court commissioner entered temporary orders in November 2022. The temporary child support order imputed Juliana’s income on the basis that her true income was unknown and she was voluntarily underemployed, but denied Ethan’s request for a downward deviation. The order imposed an approximately $800 monthly child support obligation on Ethan. The commissioner did not grant Ethan’s request for equal parenting time and, instead, established a schedule that provided him residential time that consisted of two days per week and alternating weekends. Roughly a week later, Ethan sought reconsideration of the temporary orders. He asked the court to correct the time the parties were to exchange J. on Fridays to reflect the court’s oral ruling and for the court to allow him to claim J. on his income tax return every year as, he asserted, Juliana historically had not filed an annual tax return or otherwise reported her income. Juliana opposed reconsideration. Ethan filed a reply declaration that repeated his request and downplayed the conflict to which Juliana had attested. The trial court granted Ethan’s motion in part. It ordered that the timing of exchanges would reflect its oral ruling, but denied Ethan’s request to claim J. on his tax return every year. -3- No. 86692-3-I/4 The proceedings were pro
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 14, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Marriage of No. 86692-3-I JULIANA SALES STRAIGHT, DIVISION ONE Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION v.
ETHAN HUNTER STRAIGHT,
Respondent.
HAZELRIGG, C.J. — Juliana Sales Straight appeals orders entered in the
dissolution of her marriage to Ethan Hunter Straight and specifically challenges
aspects of the parenting plan, child support order, and property division. She
asserts that the trial court failed to consider the best interests of the child in the
parenting plan, it erred by imputing her income to determine child support, and the
division of property was not equitable. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
Juliana Straight and Ethan Straight met online, and, after she came to the
United States from Brazil, Juliana moved in with Ethan in 2013. 1 She gave birth
to the couple’s only child, J., in 2014, and they married in 2016.
1 Because the parties share a last name, we refer to them by their first names for clarity
and precision. No disrespect is intended. No. 86692-3-I/2
Juliana filed a petition for dissolution in July 2022. She deferred on
providing a proposed parenting plan, asked for a child support award in
accordance with state law, and for the court to order that each parent could claim
J. as a dependent on their tax returns in alternating years. Ethan brought a motion
for a temporary family law order in October 2022. He sought entry of his proposed
temporary parenting plan and child support order. His declaration explained that
Juliana had denied his request for a week on/week off parenting schedule and that,
thus far, he had been limited to two days a week with their child. He asked for the
court to implement his proposed residential schedule which Juliana had denied.
Ethan acknowledged that he was the obligor parent based on his greater income,
but requested a downward deviation that would reflect the proposed equal
parenting time, and the fact that he was still paying half the mortgage on the family
home despite having moved out. He also alleged that Juliana’s gross monthly
income was $3,952.12, based on her deposits in the couple’s joint bank account
prior to the dissolution.
Juliana filed a response declaration and a surresponse declaration on
November 4 and 7, respectively. She first sought entry of her proposed temporary
parenting plan and temporary child support order based on her financial
worksheets, an order appointing a parenting evaluator, and her proposed
temporary order “regarding use of property and payment of household expenses
and debts.” The second declaration contained allegations regarding disparaging
remarks Ethan had purportedly made about Juliana in front of J. and in text
correspondence with the child. Ethan objected to Juliana’s untimely submission
-2-
No. 86692-3-I/3
of the November 7 surresponse declaration, requested that it be stricken as such,
and provided his own declaration which contained his own characterization of the
relevant facts. He also submitted proposed child support worksheets and order,
including his continued request for a downward deviation, and his proposed
parenting plan.
The superior court commissioner entered temporary orders in November
2022. The temporary child support order imputed Juliana’s income on the basis
that her true income was unknown and she was voluntarily underemployed, but
denied Ethan’s request for a downward deviation. The order imposed an
approximately $800 monthly child support obligation on Ethan. The commissioner
did not grant Ethan’s request for equal parenting time and, instead, established a
schedule that provided him residential time that consisted of two days per week
and alternating weekends.
Roughly a week later, Ethan sought reconsideration of the temporary
orders. He asked the court to correct the time the parties were to exchange J. on
Fridays to reflect the court’s oral ruling and for the court to allow him to claim J. on
his income tax return every year as, he asserted, Juliana historically had not filed
an annual tax return or otherwise reported her income. Juliana opposed
reconsideration. Ethan filed a reply declaration that repeated his request and
downplayed the conflict to which Juliana had attested. The trial court granted
Ethan’s motion in part. It ordered that the timing of exchanges would reflect its
oral ruling, but denied Ethan’s request to claim J. on his tax return every year.
-3-
No. 86692-3-I/4
The proceedings were pro
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 14, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools