A court may order a Washington ex parte temporary protection order without notice to the respondent pursuant to RCW 7.105.305. These temporary protection orders are intended to protect the petitioner’s safety until a full hearing. Courts have acknowledged the risk to a petitioner’s safety if notice is required for the initial temporary order and have held that any temporary infringement on the respondent’s rights by lack of notice is justified by protecting the petitioner from the immediate threat. The court may not, however, issue a full protection order without the respondent having notice and an opportunity to be heard. RCW 7.105.310. A mother recently appealed a court’s denial of her motion for revision of denial of her request for a temporary Domestic Violence Protection Order (“DVPO”) on the ground she had not given notice to the respondent.
The parties shared residential custody of their five-year-old child. The mother petitioned for a DVPO for herself and the child while the parenting plan appeal was pending. She sought an immediate temporary DVPO until a full hearing could be held. She alleged the child came back from the father’s custody on July 8, 2023 in “urine soaked clothing” and said the father had touched his “private area.” At the hospital, the child told a staff member he “feels unsafe” at his father’s home and that his father “hits him” and “touch[es] his privates.” The mother also alleged the child had frequent bedwetting, feared using the bathroom alone, developed tics, and exhibited dissociation.
The superior court commissioner denied the temporary DVPO and did not set a full hearing, marking the box that stated the petition did not list a specific incident and approximate date of the behavior supporting the protection order. The order also indicated the petitioner had 14 days to amend the petition before it was dismissed. The commissioner marked the box stating service on the father was “not required” because “[t]he petition was denied.”
The mother amended her petition with a declaration attached. Another commissioner denied the temporary DVPO without setting a full hearing, again noting the mother had not listed a specific incident that supported a protection order. This time, the commissioner checked a box under “Final Order Findings,” that stated a DVPO was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also handwrote a ruling that the matter should be addressed in the family law proceeding or in a hearing for which both parties have notice. The box indicating notice to the father was not required was checked.
The mother moved to revise the denial orders and dismissal. A superior court judge denied the revision because the mother had not served the father with a copy of the motion as required by Snohomish County Local Rule (“SCLR”) 7(b)(2)(d)(12)(A), which requires a party seeking revision to serve the other parties.
The mother appealed, arguing both commissioners erred in denying her request and the superior court judge erred by refusing to hear her revision motion.
Temporary DVPOs are intended to protect the petitioner’s safety. Requiring notice of the request for a temporary DVPO gives the respondent an opportunity to evade service, risks endangering the petitioner by upsetting the respondent before a protection order is in place, notifies abusive partners of the location of the victim, and may facilitate abduction by the abusive parent. The temporary infringement on the respondent’s rights from lack of notice is justified by the immediate threats posed by requiring notice.
The appeals court noted that the mother had sought a temporary protection order and, pursuant to RCW 7.105.305(1), notice to the respondent is not required for a petition seeking a temporary protection order. The appeals court also pointed out that the safety concerns for a person seeking a temporary protection order are still present when the person is seeking revision before a superior court judge. The appeals court noted the requirement to serve notice under SCLR 7(b)(2)(d)(12)(A) conflicts with RCW 7.10.305(1). Hearings for civil protection orders under Chapter 7.105 RCW are special proceedings, so the protection order procedures supersede any inconsistent court rules. Therefore, the statute providing that notice is not required controls.
The appeals court concluded the superior court judge erred in denying the mother’s motion for revision based on a failure to serve notice on the father. The appeals court reversed the denial and remanded to the trial court to address the mother’s motion on the merits.
Petitions for civil protection orders often occur while the parties are involved in a family law case. Whether you are seeking or opposing a Washington civil protection order, a skilled Washington civil can assist you. Blair & Kim, PLLC, has significant experience in civil protection orders, family law, and criminal defense and can be prepared to help where those matters intersect. Set up a consultation at (206) 622-6562.