RCW 7.105.225(1)(a) requires a court to issue a Washington domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) if the petitioner proves, by the preponderance of the evidence, they have been the subject of domestic violence committed by the respondent. “Domestic violence” includes “[p]hysical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear” thereof. RCW 7.105.010(9). RCW 7.105.210 allows the court to “realign the designation of the parties” in a proceeding involving a DVPO or antiharassment protection order if it finds the original petitioner was the abuser or harasser and the original respondent was the victim. The court may then issue a temporary protection order to allow the victim an opportunity to file their own petition.
In a recent unpublished case, the trial court declined to realign the parties and issue a DVPO protecting the husband, and he appealed. According to the opinion, the wife had petitioned for legal separation in 2023 after about ten years of marriage. She subsequently petitioned for a DVPO to restrain the husband from contacting her and the children. She alleged she was concerned about his alcohol and drug use and that she was “very much afraid” of him when he was under the influence.
She also alleged that he had thrown her into a door in January 2020. She also said that he struck her in the face and pushed her down when she confronted him about his substance use in May 2022, while the children were in the adjoining room. She submitted photographs of her injuries. She also described an incident in which the husband yelled at one of the children and blamed him for a college football team’s loss.
The wife said that she confronted the husband about withdrawing money from the children’s savings accounts and he headbutted her, pushed her head, and pinned her to a chair. She called 911, but hung up because the husband “freaked out.” She called the nonemergency number from her car and the operator advised her she would send an officer if the wife did not go to the police precinct. The wife spoke with an officer at the precinct and had photos taken, but she said she did not “give key verbiage of the attack. . .to protect [the husband]” and “[their] financial security.”
A commissioner granted an ex parte temporary DVPO that restrained the husband from having contact with the wife and the children. At the subsequent hearing, the commissioner modified the terms of the temporary DVPO to allow the husband supervised visitation every other week. The court scheduled a hearing for March 14, 2024.
The husband moved to realign the parties and sought a DVPO against the wife, alleging she was “actually the abuser and harasser. . .” In his declaration, he stated the wife had a substance abuse issue and had committed domestic violence against him. He referenced an incident in May 2020 that resulted in the wife being arrested and charged with fourth degree domestic violence assault. The charge against the wife was ultimately dismissed.
The court held a hearing on the wife’s DVPO motion, the husband’s motion for realignment, and his DVPO motion. The wife testified about the incidents she had referenced in her petition, but the husband did not testify.
When the husband’s attorney asked her about her arrest in May 2020, she testified that the parties were arguing and the husband was “taunting and baiting” her to hit him, “so [she] popped him in the cheek.” When asked if was the only time she hit the husband, she stated, “I have tried to defend myself from my husband.” She ultimately admitted there had been other “physical altercations.”
The commissioner issued a DVPO protecting the wife and children from the husband but found insufficient evidence to support the husband’s claim the wife had committed domestic violence. The court denied the husband’s motion for revision and adopted the commissioner’s rulings, orders, and judgments.
The husband appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his petition for a DVPO.
The wife admitted she had hit the husband once and that there had been “other. . .physical altercations,” but she had also indicated that she was acting in self-defense. The trial court determined there was not sufficient evidence before it to support a DVPO protecting the husband. The court pointed out the husband had the right to come back before the court with additional information, and the commissioner stated that her finding might be different if she had more information.
The husband argued his declaration described an incident in which the wife assaulted him and stated there had been an “ongoing pattern of physical assaults.” He argued his position was corroborated by the wife’s arrest and domestic violence assault charge. The charges against the wife were dismissed, however. The court had found the wife credible and expressed “concerns about [the husband’s] credibility.”
The appeals court concluded the trial court’s ruling was neither manifestly unreasonable nor based on untenable grounds. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the husband’s DVPO.
The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s order and awarded the wife attorney fees on appeal pursuant to RCW 7.105.310(1)(j).
In this case, the husband sought to realign the parties and obtain a DVPO protecting himself from the wife, but he did not testify at the hearing, he described one incident for which the charges against the wife were dropped, and the court seemingly found the wife to be more credible. Whether you are seeking or opposing a DVPO, a knowledgeable Washington civil protection order attorney can help. At Blair & Kim, PLLC, we are also experienced in both family law and criminal defense and can assist with related issues. Set up a consultation by calling (206) 622-6562.