Articles Posted in Domestic Violence

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

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?

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.”

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

In a petition for a Washington domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”), the court shall issue the protection order if it finds “the petitioner has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent.” RCW 7.105.225. Domestic violence includes unlawful harassment. Unlawful harassment is “[a] knowing and willful course of conduct . . . that seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to such person, and that serves no legitimate or lawful purpose.” The course of conduct must cause actual substantial emotional distress and must be conduct that would cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person.  RCW 7.105.010.  The definition statute identifies the factors to be considered in determining if a course of conduct has a legitimate or lawful purpose, including: who initiated contact, whether there has been clear notice contact is unwanted; whether the “course of conduct appears designed to alarm, annoy, or harass the petitioner”; whether the respondent is acting under statutory authority; whether the course of conduct’s purpose or effect is to unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the petitioner or “creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive living environment”; and whether a previous court order has limited the respondent’s contact with the petitioner or their family. RCW 7.105.010(6).

In a recent unpublished opinion, an ex-wife challenged a DVPO protecting her former husband.  The former wife had remarried, and according to the former husband, the parties began having difficulty co-parenting in 2021.

The ex-husband sought a DVPO in May 2023.  He attached texts and emails, alleging the former wife had been abusively targeting him electronically. His fiancée stated in her declaration that the ex-wife had chased them through a parking lot when they were leaving an event for the child. The ex-husband asked that the ex-wife be required to surrender her firearms.

Continue reading

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.”

Continue reading