Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Post-Secondary Educational Support

August 20, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington postsecondary educational support may be ordered when a child is dependent and relies upon the parents for reasonable necessities. The court has discretion in ordering postsecondary educational support. RCW 26.19.090 provides a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered.

A mother recently challenged a court’s denial of her motion for postsecondary educational support for her son after the court had awarded such support for her daughter a few years earlier.

According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the initial child support order entered in 2012 was amended in June 2020 to adjust the support for the son and order the father to pay 58% of the daughter’s postsecondary educational expenses. At that time, $9,454.69 in monthly net income was imputed to the father.

Washington Juvenile Adjudicated Guilty of Fourth Degree Assault in Altercation with Sister

August 7, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Young siblings sometimes scuffle, but they usually are not charged with a Washington crime as a result. A teenager recently challenged a guilty adjudication for fourth degree assault arising from an altercation with his younger sister.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, which relied primarily on the juvenile court’s unchallenged findings, the sixteen-year-old juvenile had recently had surgery and was weak and had lost weight. His eleven-year-old sister came upstairs to the bedroom where he was resting looking for the dogs to take them out before school. When she tried to get the juvenile’s dog, it nipped her and she struck it on the nose. The juvenile told her not to hit the dog.

She called the juvenile a name as she tried to get the other dog from under the bed. She said the juvenile gave her a “quick tap in the face with his foot.” She responded by throwing a bottle of lotion and a bottle of vitamins at him, hitting him with one of them.

Court Concludes Absolute Immunity Not Available for Statements in Sexual Misconduct Hearing

July 31, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently concluded a university disciplinary proceeding arising from a sexual assault allegation was not quasi-judicial and therefore did not afford the complainant with absolute immunity for the statements she made during the proceeding.

According to the court’s opinion, “Jane Doe” accused the plaintiff of sexual misconduct in disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Ivy League university they both attended. The plaintiff was expelled from the University. He filed suit in federal court against the university, several university employees, and Doe. His claims against Doe included defamation and tortious interference with business relationships.

The District Court concluded the disciplinary proceeding was quasi-judicial and Doe had absolute immunity for the statements she made during the proceeding under Connecticut law. It concluded extending immunity to the university’s disciplinary proceedings was warranted under Connecticut’s six-factor test to identify quasi-judicial proceedings and as a matter of public policy.

Washington Supreme Court Concludes Warrantless Search of Home Was Justified

July 30, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Caniglia v. Strom that the “community caretaking” exception to the warrant requirement did not extend to a residence. The Washington Supreme Court has recently considered application of that holding in a Washington criminal case.

According to the opinion, a deputy went to a home after 911 received a call that a caregiver had not come to work that morning. The caller also reported the caregiver had been involved in a domestic incident with her husband the day before. The deputy knocked and announced himself, but there was no answer.

He called the caregiver’s husband and told him he needed to talk with her. The deputy asked where she was and the husband said she should be at work. The husband confirmed the minivan in the driveway was hers. He provided his wife’s phone number. The deputy did not tell the husband his wife was missing or ask him to come home or for consent to check the residence.

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 Dissipation of Community Funds

July 12, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Property in a Washington divorce is generally characterized as of the date was acquired, but the date of acquisition alone does not determine its character. The court must consider whether the property was acquired by community or separate funds. Additionally, spouses may agree to convert property that otherwise would have been separate property. A husband recently challenged a trial court’s characterization of certain assets and expenditures.

Marriage

The appeals court’s unpublished opinion states the parties got married in 2004 in Arizona. Several years later, they signed a family trust agreement stating any property put in the trust would be community property. They bought a home in Washington in the name of the trust and moved into it in 2009. They subsequently rented that home out when they purchased another home, using funds from the trust for the down payment. The husband placed $820,000 he received from an arbitration related to his shares in his former employer in the trust’s bank account. The parties funded a new business from the trust. The business was successful, but closed in 2020 when its supplier went out of business.

The wife and child moved out in 2017 and the husband filed for divorce.

Federal Court Dismisses Expelled Student’s Procedural Due Process and Title IX Claims

June 28, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Title IX complaint can result in severe consequences, including loss of scholarships and dismissal from school. A former student recently sued his military college after he was expelled for alleged sexual misconduct.

The plaintiff, identified in the unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion as John Doe, was a student at a state-incorporated military college in South Carolina. A female student filed a complaint accusing him of sexual misconduct. The school’s Commandant’s Board heard the complaint and ultimately found the plaintiff committed a violation in one of the three alleged incidents of sexual misconduct. As a result, Doe lost his Marine scholarship and was dismissed from the school with leave to apply for readmission after a year. He appealed, but the appeal was denied.

He filed suit against the college and several officials, alleging violation of his right to procedural due process and sex-based discrimination. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Washington Court Concludes No Committed Intimate Relationship after Approximately Six Years Cohabitation

June 27, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington law recognizes “committed intimate relationships,” (“CIRs”) and allows courts to equitably distribute property when people separate after living together in a marriage-like relationship and acquiring property that would have been considered community property if they were lawfully married. In determining if a CIR existed, courts consider a number of factors, including the parties’ intent, the length of the relationship, whether the parties cohabited continuously, whether they pooled their resources for joint projects, and the purpose of the relationship. In a recent case, a mother appealed a trial court’s judgment that she had not been in a CIR with her child’s father.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the mother and her young child lived in a rental when the parties met. The father owned his home and several acres, as well as a rental home. The parties agreed to date exclusively in October or November of 2011. The mother told the father she was pregnant in April 2012. The mother claimed they had agreed to have a child, but the father denied discussing or wanting a child before the pregnancy.

The father claimed the mother wanted to live together because she was having difficulty paying her bills after changing jobs. He said he thought it was too soon, but felt pressured due to the pregnancy and the mother’s expenses. The trial court found they started living together around June 2012. Continue reading

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 Driver Can’t Consent to Search of Passenger’s Backpacks

June 13, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Evidence obtained through an unlawful search is generally inadmissible in a Washington criminal case. Both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Washington Constitution offer protections against unlawful searches. The Washington Constitution provides that “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law,” Article I, Section 7. This section in some circumstances provides greater privacy protections than the Fourth Amendment.

A defendant recently challenged a search of his backpacks that were inside a vehicle. The appeals court’s opinion states the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle during a traffic stop for suspicion of suspended license. The officer recognized the defendant as having an outstanding warrant. The officer ordered him to remain seated, but the defendant got out of the car and subsequently fled. The officer caught him and searched his pockets. He found a pipe, cash, and a small amount of what he thought was heroin.

The driver told the officer the defendant asked her to stop at a gas station when the patrol car was following them. She said he moved some bags to the back seat. She pointed out two backpacks on the rear floorboard and another on the passenger side floorboard. She gave permission to search the car “without limitation.”