Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Committed Intimate Relationship Property Division

October 13, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington recognizes committed intimate relationships (“CIRs”), which are cohabiting relationships that are stable and like a marriage, although both parties know they are not lawfully married. Washington courts will distribute community-like property from a CIR in a just and equitable manner. A man recently appealed a property division after a court found he had been in a CIR with his former partner.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties were involved in a CIR between 2009 and 2021. The man conceded the existence of the CIR on appeal. The man owned a home in Seattle and the woman moved into it with him in June 2009. They moved to Bainbridge Island in approximately 2011 and remained there until the CIR ended in July 2021.

The woman petitioned for a distribution of the parties’ community-like property. She testified she had helped with the mortgage and other expenses when they lived in Seattle. She did not however, testify regarding the value of her work or whether it increased the value of the home.

Department of Education Finds Public School District in Violation of Title IX for Response to Locker Room Incident

September 30, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Department of Education recently issued a press release stating that it found a Virginia public school district had violated Title IX by failing to respond to sexual harassment reports.

According to news reports, the school had a policy allowing students to use locker rooms and restrooms aligning with their gender identity. Male students allegedly harassed a transgender student in the boys’ locker room. According to the press release, that student recorded two male students in the locker room. Title IX complaints were filed by the parents of all three students.

According to the press release, the school did not “treat the male students equitably throughout the Title IX investigation process. . .” The press release stated the school had not meaningfully investigated the male students’ complaints, “yet thoroughly investigated the female student’s sexual harassment complaint. . .”

Father Failed to Show Adequate Cause for a Washington Parenting Plan Modification Hearing

September 29, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A parent seeking modification of a Washington parenting plan must meet the statutory criteria for modification. A father recently challenged a court’s determination he failed to show adequate cause for a hearing on his modification petition.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties divorced in April 2019 and the court entered an agreed parenting plan, which did not establish a residential schedule. The parenting plan provided the four children would live with their mother, except scheduled to live with the father. The parties were to engage in a good faith effort to reach an agreement for the schedule for the month by the 20^th of the preceding month.

The father petitioned for a minor modification in February 2020, alleging there was no mandatory minimum residential time for him and the mother intentionally kept him from having residential time.

Washington Supreme Court Concludes Second Degree Assault and Felony Harassment Convictions Didn’t Violate Double Jeopardy

September 26, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Both the Washington State Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protect individuals from being “twice put in jeopardy” for the same offense. The double jeopardy clause protects a person from being tried twice for the same offense and from receiving multiple punishments for the same offense. Double jeopardy may be an issue even if a defendant’s sentences are concurrent. In fact, the Washington Supreme Court has held that multiple convictions for the same offense are prohibited by the double jeopardy clause. The Washington Supreme Court recently considered whether a defendant’s convictions for second degree assault and felony harassment violated double jeopardy.

According to the Court’s opinion, the family was watching a movie on the night of the incident. Their sixteen-year-old asked for a ride the following day. The defendant offered, but the child requested the wife do it instead. The defendant “got very angry” and claimed the wife was “undermining him.” According to the wife, the defendant yelled at her for about 30 minutes before she went upstairs to help the children get ready for bed.

The children went to bed on the third floor and the wife went the second floor. The defendant went to the garage to get his guns ready for the shooting range.

Washington Court Allowed to Correct Expiration Date of DVPO as Clerical Error

September 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington protection order generally must state the date when it expires. If the order is to be permanent, the court should set its expiration date at 99 years from the date it is issued. RCW 7.105.310(5). A former wife recently appealed an order purportedly clarifying the expiration date of a renewal of a domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) against her former husband.

According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the ex-wife moved to renew a DVPO against her ex-husband in November 2023. She indicated she wanted the order to remain in effect “permanently” and asked the court to renew the order for the “maximum period allowed by law.” She described ongoing communication and contact by the ex-husband. The ex-husband denied the allegations and asked the court to deny the renewal.

The ex-wife and her attorney appeared in person at the hearing, while the husband and his attorney appeared by video conference. The court granted the renewal motion. The body of the renewal order did not identify the expiration date. Instead, there was a line in the caption of the order that stated: “Renewal Expires: 11/21/2122.”

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Student’s Claim Against University Following His Arrest and Suspension

August 31, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Fifth Circuit recently considered a case in which a university student alleged the university violated his constitutional rights and Title IX with regard to an arrest, search, and the resulting disciplinary proceedings against him.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been a student at a public university in Mississippi. He drove to campus to go to class with woman who was considering going to the university. The two started arguing and the woman alleged the plaintiff physically removed her from the vehicle “very violently.”

A campus police officer arrested the plaintiff and found a handgun when he searched the plaintiff’s backpack.

Washington Supreme Court Addresses Requirements for Juvenile Arrest Warrants

August 28, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recent case, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether the court rule and statute related to juvenile bench warrants can be harmonized.

Upon a guilty plea to fourth degree assault in March 2022, the juvenile was sentenced to seven months’ community supervision with a number of conditions.

The state moved for a bench warrant later that month, alleging the juvenile posed a serious threat to public safety pursuant to JuCR 7.16. The state alleged she was associating with an older male with gang associations, a criminal history, and a pending investigation relating to an alleged crime against the juvenile. The state argued his criminal history and the age difference “creates a situation where [the juvenile] too poses a serious threat to community safety.”

Washington Appeals Court Vacates Supplemental Findings and Reverses and Remands Property Division in Divorce

August 25, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Property divisions and child custody in a Washington divorce can be contentious. In a recent case, the former husband requested supplemental findings after the wife appealed the property division and residential schedule. The appeals court vacated the supplemental findings and determined the trial court had erred by awarding property that, based on the evidence, did not belong to either party.

According to the appeals court, the parties had an arranged marriage in Cambodia in 2004 and subsequently got married in Washington. They had three children together. The wife filed for divorce in 2021.

The court adopted the husband’s proposed property division. It found the parties had a house in Washington valued at $720,000 with a $224,928 mortgage. The court ordered the house be sold to pay any outstanding community debt, with the parties equally sharing any additional proceeds. The court also found the parties had a house in Cambodia, which it awarded to the wife, valued at $115,000.

King County Administrative Booking Procedure Violates Washington State Constitution Protections

August 14, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Washington State Constitution provides additional protection, with article I, section 7 protecting individuals from disturbances into their private affairs without authority of law. The Washington Supreme Court recently determined that the administrative booking procedure used in King County violated article I, section 7.

The defendant was charged with a felony in King County. He was not arrested or booked, but summonsed to appear at arraignment.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and was released on his personal recognizance with certain conditions.

Fifth Circuit Concludes Name-Calling Was Not Actionable Under Title IX

July 30, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recent case, the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a school district in a Title IX case against it, concluding other students calling the plaintiff “gay” and other names over the period of a few weeks was not severe enough to be actionable.

The plaintiff had been homeschooled prior to enrolling in fifth grade at a Mississippi public school. Most of his fifth-grade school year was held virtually. Although he was teased some in fifth grade, he did not really think he was bullied. For sixth grade, the plaintiff went to a new middle school. Other boys started teasing him more and calling him names. Some of the boys called him “gay.” He believed that meant “[e]ither a boy wants to love another boy or a transgender,” but he also believed the boys called him “gay” sometimes because they thought he could be a girl. He started “blowing kisses” at them, but said that made it worse.

The plaintiff said he repeatedly reported the name-calling to his teachers. His mother also addressed name-calling and bullying with the plaintiff’s teachers, but she was initially not aware the plaintiff was being called “gay.”