Domestic Violence

Washington Court Rules: No Joint Decision-Making When Both Parents Have Domestic Violence Findings

February 1, 2026 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington appeals court has confirmed that trial courts cannot order joint decision-making in a parenting plan when both parents have a history of domestic violence. In In re Marriage of Thiess, No. 87345-8-I (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2026), Division One held that former RCW 26.09.191(1) prohibits mutual decision-making whenever at least one parent has a founded history of domestic violence — even when both parents have such findings. If you are going through a divorce or custody dispute in King County that involves domestic violence allegations, this ruling could directly affect how your parenting plan is structured.

What Did the Court Decide in Thiess?

The Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s order requiring joint decision-making between two parents who had both been found to have committed domestic violence. The mother had a history of physical domestic violence, and the father had a history of emotional domestic violence as defined under RCW 7.105.010. Despite those findings, the trial court ordered joint decision-making, reasoning that restricting both parents did not make “common sense.”

Division One disagreed. The court held that former RCW 26.09.191(1) uses mandatory language — “shall not require mutual decision-making” — and that the statute applies when any parent has a history of domestic violence. The court remanded the case and ordered the trial court to assign sole decision-making authority to one parent.

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

September 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, 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According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the ex-wife moved to renew a DVPO against her ex-husband in November 2023.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, 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.

Washington Appeals Court Upholds Court’s Decision Not to Realign Parties in DVPO Case

May 19, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

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.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms DVPO Based on Unlawful Harassment

November 21, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

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.

Limitations in Washington Parenting Plan upon Finding of History of Domestic Violence

October 8, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When a court makes a finding there was a history of domestic violence in a Washington custody case, it must impose limitations on the decision-making authority and in most cases the residential time of the parent who committed the domestic violence. A mother recently challenged a parenting plan based on a lack of limitations on the father in light of the court’s finding of a history of domestic violence.

The parties got married in 2019 and had a son about a year later. The mother alleged the father was abusive toward her during the relationship. According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the father told the mother to “. . .get out” following an argument in June 2021. The mother then moved with the child to live with her parents in New Mexico. The father filed for divorce.

The court entered temporary orders allowing the father to have two monthly visits with the child, 25% of which were to occur in Washington. He only actually had about a visit every other month due to the expense and work conflicts.

Washington Respondent Not Entitled to Notice of Motion to Revise Denial of Temporary DVPO

September 9, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

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.”

Washington Appeals Court Reverses Denial of DVPO

July 9, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A wife recently appealed a trial court’s decision not to grant a domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) in a divorce proceeding. She argued that RCW 7.105.225(1)(a) required the court to issue the DVPO after a finding of domestic violence and that the court incorrectly interpreted the statute to require it to perform a risk analysis after it found domestic violence had occurred. She also argued the court erred in denying the DVPO for reasons that were expressly prohibited in the statute.

RCW 7.105.225(1) states “the court shall issue a protection order” if the petitioner proves the statutory requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. To obtain a DVPO, the petitioner must prove they were “subjected to domestic violence by the respondent.” The statute further sets forth grounds for which the court may not deny or dismiss the petition for a protection order, including: either party being a minor, unless relief or remedies are specifically limited elsewhere in Chapter 7.105 based on a party’s age; the petitioner’s failure to report the conduct to law enforcement; a no-contact order or restraining order having been issued in a criminal or domestic relations proceeding; the petitioner’s ability to obtain relief in another action or proceeding; pending criminal charges against the respondent; the time since the last incident; or the respondent not living near the petitioner. RCW 7.105.225(2).

In this case, the court found the wife had been subjected to domestic violence by the husband. The court concluded the statute suggested the court is then to conduct a risk analysis to determine whether to grant the DVPO. The trial court then concluded that the statute allowed it to deny the DVPO because of the combined reasons of the passage of time since the incident occurred and the husband no longer living near the wife.

Washington Appeals Court Concludes Defendant Knew of No-Contact Orders He Did Not Sign

February 20, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts adopted a number of policies and procedures to prevent infection. A defendant recently appealed his convictions for violation of a no contact order, challenging whether the state proved he had knowledge of the order when he had not signed it during COVID-19 protocols.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, a 2020 domestic violence no-contact order prohibited the defendant from contacting the ex-girlfriend until 2025. In October 2021, the two got into an argument. The ex-girlfriend called 911 and reported that the defendant had strangled her.

The responding officer observed that the ex-girlfriend was “very nervous” and appeared fearful and like she had been crying. He testified she told him the defendant strangled her. He did not see any injuries.

Washington DVPO and the Relocation Presumption

September 30, 2023 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington family law recognizes a rebuttable presumption that relocation of a child under a parenting plan will be permitted. That presumption does not apply, however, if the parents have “substantially equal residential time.” “Substantially equal time” generally means the child spends at least 45% of their residential time with each parent pursuant to a court order. RCW 26.09.525. A father recently challenged a relocation, partly because the trial court applied the presumption by considering how the residential time changed under a Domestic Violence Protection Order (“DVPO”).

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the mother sought a DVPO against the father after seeing severe bruising on their two-year-old daughter.

The mother filed a notice of intent to move the children. She asked that the father be evaluated for substance abuse and anger management or domestic violence and comply with the treatment recommendations. She also requested the court suspend his residential time for non-compliance.