Domestic Violence

Limitations in Washington Parenting Plan upon Finding of History of Domestic Violence

October 8, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When a court makes a finding there was a history of domestic violence in a Washington custody case, it must impose limitations on the decision-making authority and in most cases the residential time of the parent who committed the domestic violence. A mother recently challenged a parenting plan based on a lack of limitations on the father in light of the court’s finding of a history of domestic violence.

The parties got married in 2019 and had a son about a year later. The mother alleged the father was abusive toward her during the relationship. According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the father told the mother to “. . .get out” following an argument in June 2021. The mother then moved with the child to live with her parents in New Mexico. The father filed for divorce.

The court entered temporary orders allowing the father to have two monthly visits with the child, 25% of which were to occur in Washington. He only actually had about a visit every other month due to the expense and work conflicts.

Washington Respondent Not Entitled to Notice of Motion to Revise Denial of Temporary DVPO

September 9, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

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.”

Washington Appeals Court Reverses Denial of DVPO

July 9, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A wife recently appealed a trial court’s decision not to grant a domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) in a divorce proceeding. She argued that RCW 7.105.225(1)(a) required the court to issue the DVPO after a finding of domestic violence and that the court incorrectly interpreted the statute to require it to perform a risk analysis after it found domestic violence had occurred. She also argued the court erred in denying the DVPO for reasons that were expressly prohibited in the statute.

RCW 7.105.225(1) states “the court shall issue a protection order” if the petitioner proves the statutory requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. To obtain a DVPO, the petitioner must prove they were “subjected to domestic violence by the respondent.” The statute further sets forth grounds for which the court may not deny or dismiss the petition for a protection order, including: either party being a minor, unless relief or remedies are specifically limited elsewhere in Chapter 7.105 based on a party’s age; the petitioner’s failure to report the conduct to law enforcement; a no-contact order or restraining order having been issued in a criminal or domestic relations proceeding; the petitioner’s ability to obtain relief in another action or proceeding; pending criminal charges against the respondent; the time since the last incident; or the respondent not living near the petitioner. RCW 7.105.225(2).

In this case, the court found the wife had been subjected to domestic violence by the husband. The court concluded the statute suggested the court is then to conduct a risk analysis to determine whether to grant the DVPO. The trial court then concluded that the statute allowed it to deny the DVPO because of the combined reasons of the passage of time since the incident occurred and the husband no longer living near the wife.

Washington Appeals Court Concludes Defendant Knew of No-Contact Orders He Did Not Sign

February 20, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts adopted a number of policies and procedures to prevent infection. A defendant recently appealed his convictions for violation of a no contact order, challenging whether the state proved he had knowledge of the order when he had not signed it during COVID-19 protocols.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, a 2020 domestic violence no-contact order prohibited the defendant from contacting the ex-girlfriend until 2025. In October 2021, the two got into an argument. The ex-girlfriend called 911 and reported that the defendant had strangled her.

The responding officer observed that the ex-girlfriend was “very nervous” and appeared fearful and like she had been crying. He testified she told him the defendant strangled her. He did not see any injuries.

Washington DVPO and the Relocation Presumption

September 30, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington family law recognizes a rebuttable presumption that relocation of a child under a parenting plan will be permitted. That presumption does not apply, however, if the parents have “substantially equal residential time.” “Substantially equal time” generally means the child spends at least 45% of their residential time with each parent pursuant to a court order. RCW 26.09.525. A father recently challenged a relocation, partly because the trial court applied the presumption by considering how the residential time changed under a Domestic Violence Protection Order (“DVPO”).

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the mother sought a DVPO against the father after seeing severe bruising on their two-year-old daughter.

The mother filed a notice of intent to move the children. She asked that the father be evaluated for substance abuse and anger management or domestic violence and comply with the treatment recommendations. She also requested the court suspend his residential time for non-compliance.

Washington Appeals Court Reverses DVPO that Excluded Parties’ Minor Child

September 21, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When a parent seeks a Washington domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”), they may want to include their minor children as protected parties. If the protection order is against the other parent, it can affect that parent’s visitation and custody. In a recent case, a mother appealed a DVPO that did not include her three-year-old child as a protected party.

The appeals court’s opinion stated the mother had petitioned for a protection order to protect herself and her child against her boyfriend, who was also the child’s father. She requested an order restraining him from any contact with her or the child, from coming within 1,000 feet of her home or workplace or the child’s daycare. She asked for sole custody of the child. She asked the court to order the father to participate in treatment or counseling. She requested the order be effective for over a year.

She alleged multiple incidents of domestic violence by the father, including incidents in which she said he shoved her and threatened her. She stated the father was under investigation for an incident in which he threw her against the wall and to the floor, choked her, and banged her head against the floor. She alleged this incident occurred in front of the child.

Washington Appeals Court Concludes Respondent Failed to Comply with Order to Surrender Firearms

July 25, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A court issuing a Washington domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) must also order the surrender of firearms, dangerous weapons, and concealed pistol licenses. The restrained person must file a proof of surrender and receipt or a declaration of nonsurrender within five days. RCW 9.41.804. The restrained person must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they have surrendered all dangerous weapons. A petitioner recently appealed a court’s finding the respondent was in compliance with the order to surrender.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the petitioner testified the respondent became violent and controlling during their relationship. She said he had threatened to shoot up her friend’s house if she did not come out and then forced her into the car at gunpoint. She testified he took her to a deserted parking lot and ripped her shirt off, pulled her hair, and strangled her, while pointing a gun at her. She alleged he sent her photos of himself holding guns and photos of guns along with threatening text messages.

She petitioned for an order of protection. Although initially denied, she was granted a second hearing due to procedural issues. The petitioner testified and presented declarations from her mother and a witness. She presented evidence of threatening photographs of firearms the respondent sent her. The appeals court noted there were five firearms shown in the pictures, which were all taken either in the respondent’s room or his mother’s car.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms New DVPO after Original DVPO Expired

June 22, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington domestic violence protection orders (“DVPOs”) protect abused spouses, romantic partners, and family and household members. The court may order the DVPO for a fixed period of time, in many cases, one year. The petitioner may seek a renewal of the DVPO and, under current RCW 7.105.405, the petitioner does not have a burden to prove they have “a current reasonable fear of harm. . .” Instead, the respondent has the burden to prove they will not resume acts of domestic violence. In some cases, however, a DVPO may be inadvertently allowed to expire. A former husband recently challenged a DVPO protecting his former wife and their children after the previous DVPO was allowed to expire.

The parties shared custody of their two children following their divorce in 2019. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the ex-husband tried to force his way into the ex-wife’s home and injured her. She sought a domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”). The court issued a DVPO protecting the ex-wife and the children for one year. The order also limited the ex-husband’s residential time with the children to a weekly four-hour supervised visit. The ex-wife sought renewal in June 2021. Thereafter, the DVPO was extended through agreed short-term orders and ultimately expired in January 2022.

The ex-wife sought another DVPO in February 2022, alleging she allowed the prior order to expire accidentally. She stated she was still afraid of the ex-husband and that she thought she and the children were only safe because of the protection order. She also stated she had moved to modify the parenting plan to limit the ex-husband to supervised visits, but that motion was still pending.

Washington Appeals Court Upholds Renewal of DVPO

April 30, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington Domestic Violence Protection Order (“DVPO”) may order a respondent to participate in state-certified treatment, and failure to do so may be considered if the petitioner seeks renewal. A respondent recently challenged renewal of a DVPO, arguing the court should have considered his relocation and participation in an out-of-state treatment program.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the petitioner and respondent were a married couple living in Montana when they separated in 2018. After moving to Washington, the wife sought a Domestic Violence Protection Order (“DVPO”). A court commissioner issued a DVPO for one year, requiring treatment and counseling in a domestic violence perpetrator program approved by Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”).

The petitioner sought renewal of the order in 2020. The petition stated she still feared the respondent and future violent acts if the order was allowed to expire. She also stated she was afraid to visit her daughter, who lived in the same town as the respondent, without a DVPO. The respondent argued he was not a threat to the petitioner because he was still living in Montana. He offered evidence he had completed a Montana domestic violence treatment program.

Washington Parenting Plan Restrictions Due to Domestic Violence

November 22, 2022 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When a court finds a parent has engaged in a history of acts of domestic violence, a permanent Washington parent plan may not require mutual decision-making or a dispute resolution process other than court action if the court finds a parent has a history of acts of domestic violence. RCW 26.09.191. A mother recently challenged a parenting plan that required joint decision making for health care and the court’s failure to enter a restraining order after she presented substantial evidence of a history of domestic violence.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties got married in 2013 and had a child in 2014. They divorced in August 2015. The parenting plan acknowledged a “[h]istory of intimidation and verbal abuse. . . in the presence of [the] child,” but the trial court did not impose restrictions.

The father started a relationship with another woman in February 2015 and they had a child.