Civil Protection Order

What It Takes to Overturn a WA Anti-Harassment Order

June 30, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

Case Summary: In Lowther v. Czebotar, neighbors whose children attended the same elementary school got into a dispute that escalated when Czebotar screamed at Lowther in a school parking lot, threw a full water bottle at her, and blocked her car door. The trial court entered a one-year anti-harassment protection order and awarded Lowther $4,000 in attorney fees. Czebotar appealed, arguing only that Lowther had lied. Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed: it does not reweigh witness credibility, is limited to the trial record, and could not consider exhibits he filed after the order was entered. Although the order had expired by the time of the decision, the court still reached the merits to uphold the fee award, and it granted Lowther additional attorney fees for the appeal.

If you have been served with a petition or you are trying to stop harassment, Blair & Kim’s civil protection order team handles both sides of these cases throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties.

How Washington issues an anti-harassment protection order

Court Weighs in on Order to Surrender Weapons in a Washington DVPO Case

June 27, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

A Washington appellate court has confirmed that a superior court cannot refuse to enter an order to surrender weapons simply out of concern that doing so violates a respondent’s constitutional rights. In Medlin v. Miller, Division II of the Court of Appeals held that after 2023 amendments to the state’s firearm surrender statutes, issuing that kind of order does not, by itself, violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. For anyone seeking or responding to a domestic violence protection order in Washington, the decision restores a step the legislature meant courts to take.

Case Summary: In Medlin v. Miller (June 2026), Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals held that a court cannot decline to issue an order to surrender weapons (OSW) in a domestic violence protection order case based on Fourth or Fifth Amendment concerns. The 2023 amendments to RCW 9.41.801 added immunity protections that resolve those constitutional questions. Whether weapons must actually be surrendered still depends on the statutory criteria the court applies on remand.

The attorneys at Blair & Kim handle domestic violence protection order matters for both petitioners and respondents throughout the Seattle area, Bellevue, and the surrounding King, Pierce, and Snohomish County courts.

Coercive Control and Protection Orders in Washington: What Asbach v. Couto Means for DVPO Petitioners

May 27, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

Not every form of domestic violence leaves a bruise. Washington law has recognized this for several years, and a recent published decision from the Court of Appeals reinforces it: a pattern of controlling, manipulative behavior can be enough to support a domestic violence protection order (DVPO), even when there is no recent physical assault. In Asbach v. Couto, No. 60325-0-II, the court upheld protection orders built largely on coercive control — including a public YouTube video — while also clarifying the limits on what a protection order may restrain.

Short answer: In Washington, a documented pattern of coercive control can support a domestic violence protection order under RCW 7.105.010 — even without a recent physical assault. A court weighs the full pattern of controlling behavior and its impact, not a single incident.

If you are weighing whether controlling behavior in your own situation could justify a protection order, this decision is worth understanding. Below, the attorneys at Blair & Kim break down what the court decided, what “coercive control” means under Washington law, and what petitioners across King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties should take from it.

Thinking about a protection order? Blair & Kim’s civil protection order team helps petitioners across the Seattle and Bellevue area understand their options. You can learn more about protection orders here.

What Happened in Asbach v. Couto

The case arose out of a long history between a former couple who divorced in 2012. As part of that divorce, the petitioner obtained a permanent restraining order based on domestic violence, and the parenting plan limited the other party’s contact with the children because of abusive use of conflict. Over the following years, the trial court issued and repeatedly renewed protection orders covering the petitioner and the two children.

After the couple’s son turned 18 and his protection order expired, the father posted a public video to YouTube addressed to the son. In it, he made disparaging statements about the mother. The mother petitioned for a new protection order for herself and to renew the order for the couple’s minor daughter; the now-adult son filed his own petition, citing the video and incidents in which the father appeared at the son’s workplace and at a store where the daughter was present.

The trial court granted the protection orders, finding that the YouTube video and surrounding conduct amounted to coercive control. On appeal, Division II affirmed the orders, holding that substantial evidence supported a finding of coercive control. The court did, however, send one part of the orders back to the trial court — the broad restriction on posting online content — which we discuss further below.

How a Coercive Control Protection Order Works in Washington

Washington’s civil protection order statute defines domestic violence broadly. Under RCW 7.105.010(10)(b), domestic violence includes not only physical harm, bodily injury, assault, and stalking, but also coercive control and unlawful harassment between family or household members.

Coercive control is defined in RCW 7.105.010(4)(a) as a pattern of behavior used to cause another person physical, emotional, or psychological harm that, in purpose or effect, unreasonably interferes with that person’s free will and personal liberty. Importantly, the statute directs courts to consider the context and impact of the pattern of behavior from the perspective of a similarly situated person — not to view any single act in isolation.

That “context” rule was central in Asbach. Standing alone, a YouTube video criticizing a former spouse might not look like domestic violence. But the court declined to view the video in a vacuum. Against a documented history of physical violence, financial control, and emotional manipulation, the video read as a continuation of an established pattern — and that pattern is what the coercive control standard is designed to capture.

The Takeaway on Coercive Control

In Washington, coercive control is a recognized form of domestic violence. Under RCW 7.105.010(4)(a), a court evaluating a protection order petition looks at the full pattern of controlling behavior and its impact — not just a single incident — to decide whether the conduct unreasonably interfered with the petitioner’s free will and personal liberty.

Harm to One Family Member Can Affect the Whole Household

The court also addressed an argument that evidence of domestic violence directed at one family member could not support a protection order for another. Relying on Washington Supreme Court precedent, the court explained that abuse aimed at a parent can constitute domestic violence against a child in the same household — and that this reasoning is not limited to minor children. Here, it extended to an adult child still connected to the household.

For families navigating overlapping protection order, divorce, and custody and parenting plan issues, this is a meaningful point. A pattern of controlling conduct rarely affects only one person. Washington law allows courts to consider how that conduct ripples across an entire household when deciding who needs protection.

Facing overlapping family law and protection order concerns? Blair & Kim handles both family law and domestic violence protection matters, which is especially useful when divorce, custody, and safety issues overlap in the same case.

What a Protection Order Can — and Cannot — Restrict

While the court upheld the protection orders, it agreed with one of the father’s arguments: the orders went too far in restricting his future online speech. The orders barred him from posting, sharing, or transmitting any videos or media referring to the petitioner or the children “in any manner whatsoever.” The court held that this sweeping language was not narrowly tailored and raised First Amendment concerns.

The court drew a careful line. Speech that itself constitutes coercive control or another form of domestic violence is not protected, and a court may prohibit it. But an order so broad that it could bar a person from ever mentioning that he was married, had children, or wished to discuss parenting generally swept in protected speech. The court sent that portion back to the trial court to be rewritten more narrowly, while leaving the protection orders themselves — and the requirement to remove the existing video — firmly in place.

For petitioners, the practical lesson is encouraging but precise: Washington courts may restrain abusive communications, including online posts that function as coercive control, when an order is narrowly tailored to that conduct. The restriction simply has to be tailored to the harmful conduct rather than a blanket ban on all speech.

How to Petition for a Protection Order in Washington

If your situation involves coercive control or other domestic violence, Washington law provides a path to seek protection. The general process looks like this:

File a petition. A petition for a domestic violence protection order is typically filed in superior court. In the Seattle area, that usually means King County Superior Court, with petitions in neighboring counties filed in Pierce County or Snohomish County Superior Court.
Document the pattern. Because coercive control turns on a pattern rather than a single act, it helps to gather messages, posts, records, and a timeline showing the controlling behavior and its impact.
Temporary order and hearing. A court may issue a temporary order and set a hearing. At the hearing, the court decides whether to enter a longer-term order.
Standard of proof. The court must find domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence — more likely than not — to grant the order.

Procedures and local practices vary, and each case turns on its own facts. Working with counsel familiar with the local courts can help you prepare and present your petition.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I get a protection order in Washington without physical violence?

Yes. Washington’s protection order statute recognizes coercive control and unlawful harassment as forms of domestic violence under RCW 7.105.010. A documented pattern of controlling, manipulative, or threatening behavior can support a DVPO even without a recent physical assault. Each case turns on its own facts, and the court weighs the full context.

What is the standard of proof for a domestic violence protection order?

A court must issue a DVPO if it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the petitioner has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent. Washington law also makes clear that a court may not deny a petition simply because time has passed since the last incident.

Can a protection order limit what someone posts about me online?

It can, within limits. As Asbach v. Couto illustrates, a court may restrain online communications that amount to coercive control or other domestic violence, but the restriction must be narrowly tailored to that harmful conduct rather than a blanket ban on all speech. A court can also order removal of content that constitutes domestic violence.

Does abuse against one family member affect a case for another?

It can. Washington courts have recognized that domestic violence directed at one household member — such as a parent — can constitute domestic violence against another household member, including children. Courts consider how a pattern of conduct affects the household as a whole.

Talk to a Seattle-Area Protection Order Attorney

Protection order cases are fact-intensive, and coercive control claims in particular depend on presenting a clear, well-documented pattern of behavior. Whether you are seeking protection or responding to a petition, experienced counsel can help you present a clear, well-documented case.

The attorneys at Blair & Kim represent clients in civil protection order and family law matters throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, with offices in Seattle and Bellevue. The firm’s combined criminal defense and family law experience is particularly valuable in cases where domestic violence, divorce, and custody issues overlap.

Discuss your situation with Blair & Kim. To talk with our team about a protection order or related family law matter, call (206) 622-6562 or contact us here. You can also review answers to common questions on our FAQ page

Can You Appeal an Expired Domestic Violence Protection Order in Washington?

May 5, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

When a Washington court enters a domestic violence protection order, the order itself eventually expires. But the court’s finding that domestic violence occurred can outlast the order by years. A recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals confirms that a person subject to an expired DVPO can still appeal it—because the underlying finding can damage a reputation, a professional license, and a livelihood long after the order is gone. If you are facing or responding to a protection order, the civil protection orders attorneys at Blair & Kim, PLLC help clients in Seattle, Bellevue, and across King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties understand exactly what is at stake.

Quick answer: In Washington, you can appeal a DVPO even after it expires, because a domestic violence finding can carry consequences—like professional-licensing review—that may outlast the order itself.

In In re the DVPO for Rejoice Neal, No. 40361-1-III (Wash. Ct. App. May 21, 2026) (unpublished), Division Three addressed three issues that matter to anyone involved in a protection order case: whether an expired order can still be appealed, how courts treat a petitioner’s recantation, and how detailed a trial judge’s findings must be.

What Happened in the Case

The case arose from a relationship between two health care workers. After the relationship ended, both parties filed competing DVPO petitions. A court commissioner initially denied both petitions, finding neither party had proved domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence. One party moved to revise that ruling, and on revision the trial court granted a one-year DVPO, finding that the petitioner had been subjected to both the infliction of fear of physical harm and coercive control.

By the time the appeal reached Division Three, the one-year order had already expired. The respondent—who operates an in-home care facility for vulnerable adults—argued the appeal should still proceed because a domestic violence finding directly threatened his professional standing. The court agreed and reached the merits, ultimately affirming the order.

Protection order cases move quickly and the stakes are high for both sides. If you have a hearing approaching anywhere in the Seattle metro—including Bellevue, Kirkland, or Redmond—Blair & Kim’s family law team can help you prepare. Call (206) 622-6562 to discuss your situation.

Can you appeal a domestic violence protection order in Washington after it expires?

Yes—an expired DVPO can still be appealed in Washington. Although courts normally dismiss an appeal once they can no longer provide effective relief—a doctrine called mootness—Division Three held that this appeal was not moot. The court explained that “effective relief” can include clearing a person’s record and reputation of the continuing stigma that a protection order leaves behind.

That stigma is not abstract. The court noted that a domestic violence finding can be reviewed when the state decides whether to grant or deny licenses to operate adult family homes and nursing homes. Because a wrongful finding could damage this respondent’s ability to earn a living in the care industry, the appeal was not moot. The practical takeaway: in Washington, a DVPO finding may carry collateral consequences that can survive the order itself, depending on the circumstances—so appealing an expired order may still be worthwhile in some cases.

Does recanting a domestic violence report defeat a DVPO petition in Washington?

Not automatically. A central dispute in this case involved a recantation: after an initial report to police, the petitioner asked that the matter be dropped, and the respondent argued the trial court wrongly refused to weigh that recantation against the petitioner’s credibility.

Division Three clarified two related points. First, under RCW 7.105.225(2), a court may not deny a protection order simply because the petitioner did not report the conduct to law enforcement. Second, even so, a recantation may be considered as an inconsistent statement bearing on credibility—a court is allowed to weigh it. The trial court here did exactly that. It acknowledged the recantation but gave it limited weight, observing that recantation by people who have experienced domestic violence is common and does not necessarily mean the original report was false. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in that approach.

How detailed do a judge’s findings have to be to grant a DVPO?

A judge’s findings do not have to be lengthy or in writing. Division Three declined to require trial courts to issue detailed written findings or extended oral rulings every time they enter a protection order. The court recognized a practical reality: judges often hear many protection order matters in a single morning, and parties frequently appear without lawyers.

What the law does require is a reasoned decision that allows a reviewing court to understand the basis for the order. Here, the trial court’s oral ruling explained that it found the respondent not credible on two specific points and that it accepted the petitioner’s account of being threatened with a weapon and subjected to coercive control. That was enough. The court affirmed the DVPO based on both the infliction of fear of physical harm and coercive control, the latter defined under RCW 7.105.010 as a pattern of behavior that unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty.

What This Means for Petitioners and Respondents

For petitioners, the decision reinforces that a protection order can be supported by documentary evidence and a credible declaration, that a prior recantation will not automatically sink a case, and that coercive control is a recognized, independent basis for a DVPO in Washington. For respondents, it is a reminder that a protection order is not just a temporary inconvenience—the finding behind it can affect professional licensing and reputation for years, which is why a wrongly entered order may be worth challenging even after it expires.

Domestic violence protection orders sit at the intersection of family law and criminal defense, and the same set of facts can trigger consequences in more than one arena. Having attorneys who handle both can make a meaningful difference in how a protection order matter is approached.

Talk to Blair & Kim About Your Protection Order

Whether you are seeking a DVPO, responding to one, or considering an appeal of an expired protection order in Washington, the attorneys at Blair & Kim, PLLC can help you understand your options and prepare for the hearing that matters most. The firm serves clients throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties from offices in Seattle and Bellevue. Call (206) 622-6562 or contact us online to discuss your case.

Washington Court Upholds Anti-Harassment Protection Order Against Neighbor Who Directed Employees to Harass

April 28, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

When does a neighbor dispute cross the line into unlawful harassment—and what can a court do about it? In Perkins v. Jensen, No. 88080-2-I (Wash. Ct. App. April 27, 2026), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed an anti-harassment protection order against a construction company co-owner whose employees engaged in a pattern of deliberate harassment against a neighboring homeowner in Snohomish County. The decision addresses several important questions about how anti-harassment protection orders work under Washington’s protection order statute, chapter 7.105 RCW.

If you are dealing with harassment from a neighbor, a business, or any other person, the attorneys at Blair & Kim can help you understand your legal options. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

What Happened in Perkins v. Jensen?

Types of Protection Orders in Washington

April 6, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

Washington law provides several types of civil protection orders designed to protect people from violence, harassment, stalking, and abuse. Since July 1, 2022, all of these orders are governed by a single statute—chapter 7.105 RCW—which consolidated what had previously been scattered across multiple chapters of the Revised Code of Washington. Whether you are considering seeking a protection order or have been served with one, understanding the different types and how they work is an important first step.

The attorneys at Blair & Kim handle protection order cases for both petitioners and respondents throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

The Six Types of Protection Orders in Washington

Washington Court Affirms Domestic Violence Protection Order: No Intent Requirement, No Detailed Findings Needed

March 19, 2026 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

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 Moeller, PLLC can help you navigate the process. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.

What Happened in Sheridan?

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Vulnerable Adult Protection Order

December 21, 2025 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

In most cases, a person protected by a Washington civil protect order wants the order and limitations it provides. A vulnerable adult protection order, however, is commonly sought by someone else on behalf of the vulnerable person, and in some cases, the allegedly vulnerable person may object to the order. In a recent unpublished case, a man recently challenged a vulnerable adult protection order issued against him.

The petitioner sought a vulnerable adult protection order as attorney for a woman who was over 80 years old and had dementia and other health issues. She alleged the respondent had “abandoned, abused, financially exploited, or neglected” the woman, identifying specific incidents. The petition alleged the respondent had taken the woman from her retirement community to her former home twice, which upset her when she learned the place had been rented. The petitioner also alleged the respondent had given the woman alcohol twice when he was aware she had issues with alcohol abuse. The petitioner provided declarations from herself, the woman’s brother, another of the woman’s relatives, and an agent with a durable power of attorney.

The respondent submitted his own declaration, transcripts of calls with the woman, and two character reference letters.

Washington Court Allowed to Correct Expiration Date of DVPO as Clerical Error

September 11, 2025 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

A Washington protection order generally must state the date when it expires. If the order is to be permanent, the court should set its expiration date at 99 years from the date it is issued. RCW 7.105.310(5). A former wife recently appealed an order purportedly clarifying the expiration date of a renewal of a domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) against her former husband.

According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the ex-wife moved to renew a DVPO against her ex-husband in November 2023. She indicated she wanted the order to remain in effect “permanently” and asked the court to renew the order for the “maximum period allowed by law.” She described ongoing communication and contact by the ex-husband. The ex-husband denied the allegations and asked the court to deny the renewal.

The ex-wife and her attorney appeared in person at the hearing, while the husband and his attorney appeared by video conference. The court granted the renewal motion. The body of the renewal order did not identify the expiration date. Instead, there was a line in the caption of the order that stated: “Renewal Expires: 11/21/2122.”

Washington Appeals Court Holds Weapons Surrender Statute Constitutional

July 22, 2025 | by Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article 1, section 9 of the Washington State Constitution both protect an individual’s right against self-incrimination. A person may, however, be compelled to answer if they are protected from the use of their answers and evidence derived from them in any subsequent criminal case against them. State v. King. A former husband recently challenged the constitutionality of the Washington weapons surrender statute under the Fifth amendment and other constitutional protections after a court found him to be non-compliant with a weapons surrender order.

The parties divorced in April 2022. The trial court issued a temporary domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) requiring the ex-husband to surrender his firearms after the divorce. The ex-husband and his friend claimed his firearms were being stored at the friend’s house.

The ex-wife identified several additional weapons the ex-husband owned during the marriage in her declaration. The court issued a DVPO for one year and a new surrender order that listed the firearms identified in the ex-wife’s declaration.