Family Violence Appellate Project

Giving survivors a second chance at justice

Giving survivors a second chance at justice Donate




En Español
用中文（表達
In English

Announcements

WA Case Victory! Matter of Yorks v. Yorks (Unpublished No. 84480-6-I)

by

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of our client regarding the parenting plan in a divorce case. The Court agreed that despite the domestic violence finding which required mandatory restrictions and additional findings, nowhere did the trial court explain how the parent with a history of acts of domestic violence finding was favored to have majority residential time and sole decision-making authority. Additionally, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s order restricting our client from filing CPS complaints, police reports, or domestic violence protection orders because it is an infringement on her First Amendment rights.

This case is impactful because it illustrates how a trial court may minimize a domestic violence finding without making the required additional findings on major aspects of a parenting plan such as residential time and decision-making. It also makes clear that a trial court cannot strip a survivor of her ability to report abuse and/or request protective orders for the safety and well-being of her and her children. 

FVAP Washington’s staff attorney Zyreena Choudhry took the lead in this matter. Special thank you to Joanna McCallum at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP; Sharon Blackford; and Adrian Urquhart Winder at Foster Garvey PC for their mentorship and support.

Unpublished Opinion

WA Case Victory! Matter of Sadat v. Sadat (Unpublished No. 84850-0-I)

by

FVAP successfully defended against an appeal for our client. Our client filed for divorce and default orders were granted in her favor when the opposing party (OP) did not respond. Five months later, OP filed a motion to vacate the orders, arguing that he didn’t respond to the divorce petition because of “excusable neglect”. He also argued that the parenting plan entered was not in the child’s best interests because it includes a finding of domestic violence against him, despite our client’s earlier petition for a domestic violence order being denied. The trial court denied OP’s motion to vacate and upheld the default orders which OP then appealed.

The Court of Appeals ruled in our favor and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court agreed with the trial court’s statement that, “just because a petition for a domestic violence protection order is not granted, does not mean domestic violence did not in fact occur”. This is impactful because it gets rid of the assumption that a survivor must have a domestic violence protection order to successfully request a domestic violence finding against their abuser in a parenting plan. The Court also agreed that a party’s belief that it would be “reasonable” not to respond to the divorce petition and belief that our client “acted in bad faith” are not mistakes or “excusable neglect” are enough to vacate the default orders.

FVAP would like to thank our co-counsel, Adrian Urquhart Winder at Foster Garvey PC for dedicating her time and effort to partner with us on this matter.

Unpublished Opinion

WA Case Publication Victory! Graser v. Olsen (Published No. 39296-1-III)

by

FVAP successfully requested the Graser v. Olsen opinion be published case law.

This case is impactful because it clarifies that threats of self-harm, particularly with a firearm, are a “classic example of coercive control” under the Protection Order Act. The Court of Appeals specifically notes that there is additional context to the abusive party’s behavior to support the coercive control finding, with an emphasis on how threats of suicide with a firearm are a type of coercive control that meets the statutory definition of unreasonably interfering with a person’s free will and personal liberty.

The opinion is also of general public interest and importance. First, there is little case law guiding determinations of coercive control relating to threats of self-harm with a firearm as domestic violence under RCW 7.105. Second, the case validates a domestic violence protection order petitioner as credible in their details of coercive control and request to remove firearms during separation, understanding that this is well known to be the most dangerous time for domestic violence survivors.  Overall, this case offers clarity on identifying evidence of coercive control based on the petitioner’s credibility and the strength of the evidence presented in court.

A special thank you to our FVAP Washington volunteer, Priscilla Moreno, for bringing this case to light, and her dedication to domestic violence survivors.

FVAP would like to thank Clark County Volunteer Lawyers Program, Northwest Justice Project, Tacomaprobono Community Lawyers, Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Project DVORA | Jewish Family Services, and Mary L. “Jill” Jackson, MSW, Independent Forensic Social Work Specialist for joining our motion to publish this case.

Published Opinion  

Case Alert: Washington – Coercive Control: New case explains how threats of self-harm and intimidating use of firearms are domestic violence by “coercive control.”

Request for Proposals: Washington – Research Consultant (Remote)

by

SUMMARY OF REQUEST

Position: Research Consultant (Fully Remote)

Project: Equitable Access to Appellate Legal System for Survivors of Domestic Violence and Other Unrepresented Marginalized Litigants

Family Violence Appellate Project (“FVAP”) seeks to engage survivors of domestic violence and other stakeholders throughout the state of Washington to better understand the landscape of experiences of those who navigate the Washington appellate legal system. FVAP seeks proposals from vendors to conduct a study and analyze the qualitative data to build and develop a report that articulates the findings.

Organizational Introduction:

FVAP is a California and Washington state non-profit legal organization whose mission is to ensure the safety and well-being of survivors of domestic violence and other forms of intimate partner, family, and gender-based abuse by helping them obtain effective appellate representation. FVAP provides legal assistance to survivors of abuse at the appellate level through direct representation, collaborating with pro bono attorneys, advocating for survivors on important legal issues, and offering training and legal support for legal services providers and domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking counselors.

By centering our work on the most marginalized survivors, including rural, immigrant, Native American, BIPOC, and LGBTQIA+ communities, FVAP works to transform the power of the civil legal system to support all survivors of abuse. A significant part of this work is ensuring survivors, especially those experiencing multiple oppressions, and the people who support them, have access to the legal information, resources and remedies they need to achieve justice.

Project Overview and Purpose:

The Need:

Domestic violence has devastating long-term consequences for young children and often serves as a barrier to their overall health and success. The trauma associated with families experiencing domestic violence also makes it more likely that the children will subsequently struggle with mental health and behavior disruptions, struggle in school and puts them at a higher risk for longer-term mental health and physical health issues and are more likely to engage and experience abuse themselves well into adulthood. When a legally incorrect decision is made at the trial court level–for example, denying a protection order or awarding custody to a parent with a history of domestic violence–these immediate harms can become intractable and ongoing harms. But an appeal, which every litigant has a right to, can reverse those harms, and provide a potential for healing and safety.

The appeals process can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and FVAP’s free civil legal services help defray some of those costs and make it possible for survivors of domestic violence to appeal. If FVAP is unable to directly represent a survivor, crucial legal information and technical assistance is provided to them to support their understanding of and access to the appellate court system.

FVAP firmly believes that accessible legal information about the appellate process, the rules of procedure, templates for appellate pleadings, should be provided to all litigants to ensure they can exercise their right to an appeal, and to decide if an appeal is the right recourse for them. Individuals with the means to hire an appellate counsel (costing on average $30,000-$50,000 not including the costs of an appeal) will have their rights explained to them and will be able to make informed decisions about whether or not to seek appellate relief.  Even if appellate relief is unlikely to be successful, litigants with means will have the opportunity to try. But those who are unrepresented, low-income, from marginalized communities, etc., do not have the same access to the appellate courts. For them, this “right” to an appeal is essentially foreclosed. And without FVAP’s project goals of assessing the gaps, sharing, and providing plain language appellate self-help resources, providing appellate technical assistance, and also providing free direct appellate representation where possible, they likely never will.

Currently, data collected by the court has not served to address or remedy the issues faced by those who find themselves entering the appellate legal system.

To accomplish far-reaching changes to the appellate legal system, we must design new, trauma-informed approaches in collaboration with the communities that are most impacted.  FVAP, in partnership with unrepresented survivors, advocates, civil legal aid attorneys, and court personnel will perform this task for the Washington appellate courts on behalf of survivors in the state by collecting data to assess gaps in services, and collaboratively craft solutions in order to work towards our vision of ensuring equitable access to the appellate legal system.

Objectives, Goals, and Deliverables:

  1. Participate in regular meetings with FVAP staff, members of the Equitable Access to Appellate Courts (EAAC) Workgroup, and Workgroup Liaison;
  2. Collect Qualitative Interview Data through a Collaborative Study Design;
    1. Conduct interviews with court staff and subject-matter experts for background information;
    2. Develop interview protocol and tailor questions to engage those most impacted around survivor experiences with accessing or trying to access the appellate courts;
    3. Lead in the facilitation of virtual survivor listening sessions;
    4. Interview survivor volunteers, unrepresented appellants, court staff, and appellate attorneys, gathering comprehensive information on their experiences;
    5. Lead in logistics as they are related to soliciting participants for the listening session opportunities, facilitating and fielding participant questions, organizing the listening sessions, and facilitating relevant documentation for participants (e.g., confidentiality forms, etc.)
    6. Aim to understand rights to counsel, perceptions about appeals, preferred cases for appeal, court deadlines’ impact, clarity of appellate rules, costs associated with appeals, and the effectiveness of current legal representation.
  3. Analyze the data collected to identify most prominent themes; and
  4. Develop a written report on the findings and recommendations around appellate courts experiences, potential gaps and strengths, and necessary and relevant reforms. The recommendations will be developed in collaboration and consultation with FVAP and the EAAC Workgroup.
Read Full RFP and Application Details Here

Request for Proposals: Washington – EAAC Workgroup Liaison Consultant (Remote)

by

SUMMARY OF REQUEST

Position: EAAC Workgroup Liaison Consultant (Fully Remote)

Project: Equitable Access to Appellate Legal System for Survivors of Domestic Violence and Other Unrepresented Marginalized Litigants

Family Violence Appellate Project (“FVAP”) seeks to engage survivors of domestic violence and other stakeholders throughout the state of Washington to better understand the landscape of experiences of those who navigate the Washington appellate legal system. FVAP seeks proposals from vendors to conduct a study and analyze the qualitative data to build and develop a report that articulates the findings.

Organizational Introduction:

FVAP is a California and Washington state non-profit legal organization whose mission is to ensure the safety and well-being of survivors of domestic violence and other forms of intimate partner, family, and gender-based abuse by helping them obtain effective appellate representation. FVAP provides legal assistance to survivors of abuse at the appellate level through direct representation, collaborating with pro bono attorneys, advocating for survivors on important legal issues, and offering training and legal support for legal services providers and domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking counselors. By centering our work on the most marginalized survivors, including rural, immigrant, Native American, BIPOC, and LGBTQIA+ communities, FVAP works to transform the power of the civil legal system to support all survivors of abuse. A significant part of this work is ensuring survivors, especially those experiencing multiple oppressions, and the people who support them, have access to the legal information, resources and remedies they need to achieve justice.

Project Overview and Purpose:

The Need:

Domestic violence has devastating long-term consequences for young children and often serves as a barrier to their overall health and success. The trauma associated with families experiencing domestic violence also makes it more likely that the children will subsequently struggle with mental health and behavior disruptions, struggle in school and puts them at a higher risk for longer-term mental health and physical health issues and are more likely to engage and experience abuse themselves well into adulthood. When a legally incorrect decision is made at the trial court level–for example, denying a protection order or awarding custody to a parent with a history of domestic violence–these immediate harms can become intractable and ongoing harms. But an appeal, which every litigant has a right to, can reverse those harms, and provide a potential for healing and safety.

The appeals process can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and FVAP’s free civil legal services help defray some of those costs and make it possible for survivors of domestic violence to appeal. If FVAP is unable to directly represent a survivor, crucial legal information and technical assistance is provided to them to support their understanding of and access to the appellate court system.

FVAP firmly believes that accessible legal information about the appellate process, the rules of procedure, templates for appellate pleadings, should be provided to all litigants to ensure they can exercise their right to an appeal, and to decide if an appeal is the right recourse for them. Individuals with the means to hire an appellate counsel (costing on average $30,000-$50,000 not including the costs of an appeal) will have their rights explained to them and will be able to make informed decisions about whether or not to seek appellate relief.  Even if appellate relief is unlikely to be successful, litigants with means will have the opportunity to try. But those who are unrepresented, low-income, from marginalized communities, etc., do not have the same access to the appellate courts. For them, this “right” to an appeal is essentially foreclosed. And without FVAP’s project goals of assessing the gaps, sharing, and providing plain language appellate self-help resources, providing appellate technical assistance, and also providing free direct appellate representation where possible, they likely never will.

Currently, data collected by the court has not served to address or remedy the issues faced by those who find themselves entering the appellate legal system.

To accomplish far-reaching changes to the appellate legal system, we must design new, trauma-informed approaches in collaboration with the communities that are most impacted.  FVAP, in partnership with unrepresented survivors, advocates, civil legal aid attorneys, and court personnel will perform this task for the Washington appellate courts on behalf of survivors in the state by collecting data to assess gaps in services, and collaboratively craft solutions in order to work towards our vision of ensuring equitable access to the appellate legal system.

Objectives, Goals, and Deliverables:

  1. Participate in regular meetings with FVAP staff, members of the Equitable Access to Appellate Courts (EAAC) Workgroup, and Research Consultant;
  2. Collaborate with FVAP staff and Research Consultant to ensure relevant deliverables and timelines are being met;
  3. Act as subject matter expert in relation to providing consultation around court research and court-based program evaluation;
  4. Act as subject matter expert in relation to providing consultation around the translation of implementation science concepts into court and/or public justice systems;
  5. Provide consultation as it relates to trauma-informed interview protocol and questions; and
  6. Provide consultation and act as co-author in the report as it pertains to recommendations around appellate courts experiences, potential gaps and strengths, and necessary and relevant reforms. The recommendations will be developed in collaboration and consultation with FVAP staff and the EAAC Workgroup.
Read Full RFP and Application Details Here

CA Case Victory! Zachary H. and Teri A (D081250)

by

Zachary H. and Teri A (D081250)

California’s Firearms Restriction under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act Ruled Constitutional. Access to Guns Is A Protected Right for Law Abiding Citizens, not Perpetrators of Domestic Violence

The 4th District Court of Appeal granted our request for partial publication of an opinion on the constitutionality of California’s firearms restriction under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The court also agreed to use pseudonyms to protect the survivor’s privacy.

First, the case involved a domestic violence restraining order against a mother, which included a prohibition on possessing firearms. The mother argued that a recent Supreme Court decision,  N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen 597 U.S. __ [142 S.Ct. 2111] (Bruen), rendered the firearms restriction unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. However, the court clarified that the firearms prohibition does not violate a restrained party’s Second Amendment right, as the Bruen decision only applies to law-abiding citizens, not individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

Second, the opinion also addressed whether an employment exception to the firearms prohibition violated the equal protection clause. The court held that the two groups of individuals, those who need firearms for employment and those who desire firearms for self-protection, are not similarly situated. Even if they were, the court found that the exception is rationally related to the government’s interest in reducing domestic violence. The exception is narrow and limited to specific circumstances, balancing the government’s interest with the economic interests of restrained parties.

Opinion Publication  – This opinion is an order modifying an opinion and certifying it for partial publication. It involves a case between Zachary H. and Teri A. in the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One in California. The opinion also discusses the application of the Second Amendment and equal protection clause in relation to firearms restrictions for individuals subject to restraining orders. 

WA Case Victory! Prussak v. Prussak (No. 57233-8-II) Published Opinion

by

Prussak v. Prussak (No. 57233-8-II) Published Opinion

Appellant Mr. Prussak appealed the renewal of a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) against him. The trial court found that Mr. Prussak failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances or that his acts of domestic violence would not resume. Mr. Prussak argued that the trial court abused its discretion by characterizing his electronic monitoring behavior as potentially stalking, and also considering evidence of his ongoing coercive control in the family law matter. 

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s findings and conclusions. Importantly, the Opinion clarifies that post-separation behaviors are indeed relevant when considering whether an individual with a history of domestic violence will resume acts of abuse. These post-separation acts of coercive control, including electronic monitoring of the survivor, are relevant when a trial court decides whether to renew a protection order. The Opinion additionally confirms that even under the new protection order statutory framework, the burden of proof is on the restrained party, not the petitioner, in a DVPO renewal. Finally, the Opinion provides examples of when a restrained party’s behavior does not demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances—thus the DVPO should be renewed. 

These points collectively demonstrate the benefits of the case in providing clarity and guidance in deciding DVPO renewals and enhancing the safety of survivors of domestic violence.

A special thank you to FVAP Washington’s Summer Law Clerks, Brook Purtill and Michael Savell. FVAP would also like to thank Clark County Volunteer Lawyers Program, King County Sexual Assault Resource Center, the Northwest Justice Project, and Tacomaprobono Community Lawyers for their partnership in co-signing this motion.

Published Opinion