Domestic violence protection orders can reshape every aspect of a family’s life—restricting contact with a spouse, limiting time with children, and creating a record that follows the respondent for years. In In re Marriage of Sheridan, No. 87948-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. March 16, 2026), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed a DVPO and clarified two important points about how these orders work under Washington’s protection order statute, chapter 7.105 RCW. For anyone involved in a civil protection order proceeding in the Seattle area, this decision matters.
Whether you are seeking a protection order or defending against one, the attorneys at Blair & Kim can help you navigate the process. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.
What Happened in Sheridan?
The case arose from a divorce proceeding in which one spouse petitioned for a DVPO against the other, seeking to restrain contact with her and the couple’s two minor children. The petition was based on three incidents of alleged physical contact and intimidation, including unwanted touching after repeated requests to stop, grabbing of the petitioner’s wrist in an angry confrontation, and pushing a door into her in a separate incident years earlier.
A court commissioner initially denied the petition, finding the petitioner had not credibly alleged domestic violence. The petitioner then moved a superior court judge for revision. Reviewing the pleadings and hearing transcript de novo, the judge disagreed with the commissioner and entered a DVPO. After the respondent moved for reconsideration, the judge added more specific factual findings but again concluded that domestic violence had been established. The respondent appealed.
Key Takeaways from the Court of Appeals Decision
1. Courts Do Not Need to State Specific Reasons When Granting a DVPO
The respondent argued the trial court’s findings were “conclusory and insufficient.” The Court of Appeals disagreed, citing its recent decision in Matter of Timaeus, 34 Wn. App. 2d 670 (2025). Under RCW 7.105.225(6), a court is required to state its reasons in writing only when it denies a protection order petition. When the court grants the order, the statute imposes no such requirement. The court’s findings need only be specific enough to permit meaningful appellate review.
For petitioners, this is reassuring: a court does not need to write a detailed opinion explaining every factual finding when it decides to issue a protection order. For respondents, it means that challenging a DVPO on appeal based on the detail of the trial court’s findings is an uphill battle.
2. No Intent Requirement for a DVPO
The respondent also argued that the court failed to find he acted with intent. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, relying on Timaeus and the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in DeSean v. Sanger, 2 Wn.3d 329 (2023). The court held that RCW 7.105.010’s definition of domestic violence does not include an intent element for assault or the infliction of fear. Where the legislature has intended to require a particular mental state for a protection order, it has said so explicitly. The absence of intent language is presumed deliberate.
This is significant. It means that a petitioner does not need to prove the respondent meant to cause fear or harm. The question is whether the respondent’s conduct, viewed objectively, constituted assault—defined in Washington as putting another person in apprehension of harm—or inflicted fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault. The respondent’s subjective intent is not part of the analysis.
Blair & Kim’s family law team handles protection order cases on both sides—for petitioners seeking safety and for respondents defending their rights. With offices in Seattle and Bellevue, the firm serves clients throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. Reach out to discuss your situation.
3. Substantial Evidence Standard Defers to the Trial Court
The respondent challenged the factual basis for the DVPO, arguing that the evidence supported a different narrative. The Court of Appeals applied the well-established substantial evidence standard: the question is not whether the appellate court would have reached the same conclusion, but whether a fair-minded, rational person could have found the facts as the trial court did. The appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or second-guess credibility determinations.
Here, the petitioner’s sworn declarations and testimony described three specific incidents of unwanted physical contact and intimidation. That was enough. The respondent’s argument that the evidence could be interpreted differently did not undermine the trial court’s findings—it simply reflected a disagreement about credibility and weight that appellate courts will not revisit.
4. Attorney Fees Can Be Awarded to the Prevailing Petitioner
The Court of Appeals also granted the petitioner’s request for attorney fees on appeal under RCW 7.105.310(1)(j), which allows courts to reimburse a petitioner for costs incurred in bringing a DVPO action, including reasonable attorney fees. This provision applies at both the trial and appellate levels.
For respondents, this adds financial risk to an unsuccessful appeal. For petitioners, it provides an important safeguard: the cost of enforcing a protection order should not fall entirely on the person seeking protection.
What This Means for Protection Order Cases in Washington
The Sheridan decision reinforces several principles that shape how DVPOs work in practice across Washington. Courts have broad discretion in granting protection orders. The evidentiary standard is substantial evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No showing of intent is required. And trial court credibility findings are essentially unreviewable on appeal.
These principles cut both ways. For someone seeking a DVPO, they mean the process is designed to be accessible—you do not need to prove intent, and your sworn testimony about what happened carries real weight. For someone responding to a DVPO petition, they mean the hearing before the commissioner or judge is the critical moment. The appellate court will defer to the trial court’s assessment of who is telling the truth.
That is why having experienced legal representation at the initial hearing matters so much, regardless of which side of the petition you are on.
How Blair & Kim Can Help
Protection order proceedings sit at the intersection of family law and criminal defense—and Blair & Kim practices in both areas. The firm’s attorneys understand how a DVPO can affect custody, parenting plans, firearm rights, and even criminal exposure if violated. Whether you need to obtain a protection order to keep your family safe or you need to defend against a petition that does not reflect what actually happened, the team at Blair & Kim can help you prepare for the hearing that will shape the outcome.
If you are involved in a domestic violence protection order proceeding, contact Blair & Kim today at (206) 622-6562 or submit a confidential inquiry online.