Sexual Violence Law Firm (SVLF) Response:
“We are thrilled by the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision in Wolf v Washington, which unanimously decided to broaden access to civil remedies for child sexual abuse victims. SVLC, along with our partners at Washington Defender’s Association, Family Violence Appellate Project, and Legal Voice, submitted an amicus highlighting the higher rates of abuse young girls of color experience in the foster care system and the need for services and support for children to process and recognize past traumas before they can identify possible legal remedies.”
We are pleased to report the Washington State Supreme Court agreed the broad avenues of civil redress under RCW 4.16.340 as the Washington State Legislature intended mean that a negligence claim against such a third party doesn’t accrue until the victim recognizes the connection between the third party’s wrongful conduct and the victim’s resulting injury.
This opinion makes it possible for survivors who experienced childhood sexual abuse in foster care, predominantly Black and Indigenous dependent children and youth, to draw causal connections between their caretakers’ negligent actions and the promise and duty of the State to protect them.
WA Supreme Court Opinion and Amicus Brief
Announcements
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez (Amicus, Unpublished) – Denial of DVRO
Client successfully appealed the denial of her Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO). At her last hearing, following nearly two years of pandemic and other continuances, the trial court offered the survivor an opportunity to agree to an ongoing temporary restraining order (TRO). This would not be a finding of domestic violence and would not have the same protections as a domestic violence restraining order after hearing. When she refused, the trial court found she did not have “a reasonable fear of future abuse” and denied the DVRO request. That is the standard to renew a restraining order, not grant an initial DVRO. The trial court also failed to find that the other party in the case had violated the TRO despite undisputed evidence that the other party had contacted her to threaten and intimidate her. FVAP and Barnes & Thornburg co-counseled on an amicus brief supported by 22 other organizations and individuals. The brief discussed the problematic trend of multiple continuances and the false premise that a temporary order had the same protections as a final order after hearing. The brief also discussed common protective parenting practices of survivors who put themselves at risk not because they are not afraid but because it is safer for their children to be present. The Court of Appeal reversed and sent the matter back to the trial court. It ruled that the trial court erred by not finding that the other party’s violations of the TRO were abuse, when in fact they were, explicitly meeting the client’s burden of proof for receiving a domestic violence restraining order.
FVAP co-counseled with Barnes & Thornburg, LLP and were proud to support the appeal brought by Community Legal Aid SoCal.
California Legal Victory! Michael M. v. Robin J. (Published) -Denial of DVRO Renewal
Michael M. v. Robin J. (Published) – Survivor’s Retaliatory or Angry Motives for Renewing a DVRO Does Not Mean There is Not a Genuine Fear of Future Abuse
The survivor asked the trial court to renew her domestic violence restraining order because her former boyfriend had physically attacked her 5 months after the initial DVRO was issued, violated the DVRO by texting her directly instead of using the Talking Parent platform, physically abused the parties’ minor child, and refused to pay child support. Despite this evidence, the trial court denied the survivor’s request to renew her DVRO because there had been no violations of the DVRO in the “past several years” and it believed the survivor’s fear of her former boyfriend was not credible because it found that there were other circumstances that led to the survivor filing the request. The appellate court reversed and renewed the survivor’s DVRO. The appellate court concluded that the trial court was wrong to 1) require the survivor to show evidence of a recent act of abuse or a recent violation of the DVRO, 2) determine that an “unquestionably violation” of the DVRO was not “really” a violation, and 3) “infer a retaliatory motive from the mere timing of [the survivor’s] renewal request” and reject her claim of fear of future abuse on that basis alone. Significantly, the appellate court noted “anger and fear are not mutually exclusive” so even if the survivor did have a retaliatory motive for asking the court to renew her restraining order this did not negate her reasonable fear of future abuse.
FVAP is thankful to have co-counseled this matter with Covington & Burling, LLP.
The appellate court’s published opinion can be found here.
California Legal Victory! Vinson v. Kinney – Denial of DVRO
Vinson v. Kinsey – Survivor’s Ongoing Contact With the Person Who is Abusive Does Not Mean Abuse Did Not Happen
In Vinson v. Kinsey, the survivor asked the trial court for a domestic violence restraining order because her ex-partner physically abused her and threatened to kill her. In addition to her declaration, the survivor provided the court with six written declarations from witnesses to verbal abuse and/or her physical injuries. The survivor also gave the court copies of text messages where her ex-partner admitted that he had threatened to kill her and admitted to hitting her in the past. Despite this evidence, the trial court denied the survivor’s request for a restraining order, concluding that the survivor was not “concerned” about her ex-partner’s “comment that he would kill her” because she continued to have contact with him. The appellate court overturned the trial court’s decision to deny the restraining order and sent the case back for the trial court to decide whether a restraining order should be issued. The appellate court explained that threats do not need to be threats of violence to constitute abuse under California law. The appellate court further noted that “other aspects of the trial court’s ruling [were] also troubling,” namely that the trial court wrongly focused on the survivor’s continued contact with her ex-partner. In doing this, the trial court “effectively imposed on [her] a singular vision of how an abused woman should act” when “[all] women exposed to violence and abuse . . . do not respond similarly.” FVAP successfully co-counseled this matter with Latham & Watkins, LLP.
FVAP is thankful to have co-counseled with Latham & Watkins, LLP on this matter.
The appellate court’s published opinion can be found here.
CA Legal Victory! Hatley v. Southard – Reversal of DVRO Denial
In this case, our client, Jennifer Hatley, requested a DVRO against and spousal support from her estranged husband, James Southard. Despite Jennifer alleging a pattern of coercive control, including financial control, emotional and verbal abuse, taking her car and phone, and even some physical abuse, the trial court denied Jennifer’s DVRO request. The court also refused to let Jennifer testify to sexual abuse, which she alleged only in a supplemental declaration without giving details. Finally, the court failed to rule on Jennifer’s request for spousal support, effectively denying it; Jennifer, representing herself at trial, did not know to press the issue.
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and sent it back for a new hearing on both the support request and the DVRO, concluding Jennifer’s allegations, if true, would meet the “broad” DVPA definition of abuse, especially as amended by 2020’s Senate Bill 1141, which clarified that DVPA abuse includes, among other things, coercive control. The trial court also must consider Jennifer’s allegations of sexual abuse, as those were properly raised in her supplemental declaration. Plus, the Court confirmed, even if a DVRO is denied, trial courts still have to rule on a support request. Finally, the Court recognized that if Jennifer again represents herself, the trial court would have to take a more active role in making sure she can properly present her case. FVAP co-counseled this case with Morrison Foerster, with amicus support from California Women’s Law Center and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, who successfully requested publication.
The court’s published opinion can be found here.
CA Legal Victory! T.W. v. M.S. Child Support Appeal
In 2018, our client T.W. got a domestic violence restraining order against the father of the parties’ child, M.S. Months later, T.W. was awarded child support at almost $500 per month. Since that time, M.S. continued filing frivolous and harassing litigation, even after being declared a vexatious litigant. In 2022, even though he did not get pre-filing permission as a vexatious litigant, M.S. was allowed to file a request to reduce his child support obligations and have T.W. pay him instead. The court did not grant M.S.’s request for T.W. to pay him, but it reduced his support obligation to T.W. to only $1 per month by using M.S.’s professed monthly income of $75 per month, even though the court twice found that amount “not credible.” With the help of Fenwick & West LLP, FVAP successfully appealed this decision, reversing the reduction of child support to T.W.
The court’s unpublished opinion can be found here.
CA Legal Victory! T.W. v. M.S. DVRO Renewal Appeal
In 2018, our client T.W. got a three-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against the father of their child, M.S. While T.W.’s DVRO was in place, T.W.’s trial attorney also got a workplace violence restraining order against M.S., and M.S. was declared a vexatious litigant for his continuous harassing and frivolous litigation against T.W. In 2021, the court denied T.W.’s request to renew her DVRO. We appealed, with the help of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, and the Court of Appeal agreed with us that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the renewal because all of the relevant factors supported renewing T.W.’s DVRO against M.S. The Court reversed and remanded, sending the case back to the trial court with instructions to grant the renewal and just determine whether to renew T.W.’s DVRO for five or more years, or permanently, under subdivision (a) of Family Code section 6345.
The court’s unpublished opinion can be found here.
