announcements

What does it take to make appellate courts truly accessible—for survivors of domestic violence, for people who’ve been incarcerated, for those navigating the legal system alone and without resources? FVAP set out to find answers.

Through our Washington Pilot Project, funded by the Washington Department of Commerce, FVAP collaborated with researchers who closely examined the systemic barriers blocking equitable access to appellate justice—centering the lived experiences of marginalized communities too often left out of legal reform conversations.

The findings are clear: structural obstacles persist, but they are not inevitable. Our report identifies those barriers and offers actionable recommendations for building a more accessible, equitable, and user-centered appellate process.

Now, we’re looking to California.

The same questions that drove our Washington research demand answers here. FVAP is actively seeking partners—funders and stakeholders committed to systemic reform—to bring this work home and advance justice for survivors and underserved communities across our state. If you’re ready to help make California courts more just, we want to hear from you.

Download the full report

Who was involved: FVAP Washington worked with pro bono lawyers from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP to represent a survivor defending her domestic violence protection order.

What Makes This Case Important

This is the first published case in Washington to thoroughly analyze what “coercive control” means as a form of domestic violence. This case helps survivors in two major ways:

1. Get protection orders that focus on coercive control, even when there’s no physical harm
2. Present evidence of coercive control without having to prove the abuser intended to cause harm

The Background

A survivor had been granted a domestic violence protection order by a trial court. The abuser appealed, arguing there wasn’t enough evidence of domestic violence through coercive control. The Appeals Court disagreed and upheld the protection order.

What the Court Found: Examples of Coercive Control

The court found significant evidence that the respondent’s behavior qualified as coercive control under Washington law, including both specific examples and broader patterns.

Specific Examples Listed in the Law:

• Threats to the survivor’s pet
• Threats to harm himself
• Repeatedly putting down the survivor based on her reproductive health choices

Broader Patterns of Control:

• Monitoring and controlling her movements and behavior
  • Interfering with her ability to breastfeed their baby
  • Not allowing her to have her own space in the home
  • Isolating her from family and friends
• Humiliation and intimidation (sometimes in front of their child)
  • Regularly using degrading language toward her
  • Example: “Papa doesn’t get to be happy and cheerful because his wife is a selfish [c**t]”

The Key Legal Ruling

Most importantly, the court ruled that an abuser does not have to “intend” to cause harm for their behavior to qualify as coercive control.

What matters is the effect the behavior had on the survivor, not whether the abuser meant to cause harm.

What This Means for Survivors

This decision makes it easier for survivors to:

• Get protection orders based on coercive control patterns, even without physical violence
• Present their case without having to prove the abuser’s state of mind or intentions
• Have their experiences validated by the legal system when abuse doesn’t involve physical harm

Current Status

Publication Update: This court decision was originally unpublished (meaning it couldn’t be used as legal precedent). However, on August 7, 2025, the court granted a request to publish the opinion, making it available for other survivors and lawyers to use in similar cases.

Bottom Line

Washington courts now recognize that coercive control is a serious form of domestic violence that deserves legal protection. Survivors no longer need to prove their abuser intended to harm them – they just need to show the harmful effects of the controlling behavior.

View the Published Opinion

Why this case is important: 

• This is one of the few cases to clearly hold that trial courts may not disregard or minimize abuse allegations simply because they arise in the context of custody and visitation disputes.
• This is the first California appellate decision to expressly hold that incidents of abuse occurring outside the United States must still be considered when deciding whether to grant or deny a Domestic Violence Restraining Order.
• This case reaffirms several points of law important for DVRO cases, such as:
  • Using someone’s immigration status to threaten, pressure, or control them is a form of coercive control. 
  • Trial courts must consider the totality of the circumstances when deciding whether to grant or deny a DVRO. 

Summary of the Case

In this case, X.K., a Chinese emigrant, sought a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) against her ex-husband, M.C., a U.S. citizen. She described a history of abuse–some of which occurred when the couple lived in China–including physical and sexual abuse while she was pregnant and after childbirth, strangulation, and threats. She also alleged M.C. continued his pattern of coercive control once she returned to California with their daughter in 2022. He, for example, threatened to divorce her if she did not follow his family’s rules, including being home every night and only working when their child was at school. He further threatened to kick her out of the residence and refused to let her use his car, limiting her to jobs within walking distance. M.C. also constantly changed his mind on whether he would assist X.K. with her green card application.

The trial court denied X.K.’s request, noting its belief that most of the issues involved disputes about custody and visitation and not abuse. The court also questioned whether it could consider abuse that happened multiple years ago in China.

The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court erred when it determined X.K.’s allegations were “merely a dispute over custody and visitations that did not ‘fall under the definition of abuse’” and dismissed her DVRO request.  The appellate court explained that, if X.K.’s allegations of abuse were found to be credible, they could have established past acts of physical and sexual abuse and conduct that disturbed her peace.  The appellate court further noted that the trial court should have considered all the evidence, including past acts of abuse occurring in China, to determine whether M.C.’s recent conduct in California disturbed X.K.’s peace. As a result, the Court of Appeal remanded the case for a new hearing.

View the full Case Alert for practice tips. | View the Published Opinion.

Who was involved: FVAP Washington partnered with pro bono lawyers from Davis, Wright, Tremaine law firm to file a legal brief supporting Washington’s weapon surrender law.

Supporting Organizations

Many organizations joined to support this case:

• Battered Women’s Justice Project
• The National Family Violence Law Center at GW Law
• Clark County Volunteer Lawyer’s Program
• Eastside Legal Assistance Program
• Jewish Family Service in Seattle, Project DVORA
• Victim Rights Law Center
• Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence
• The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
• Spokane Regional Domestic Violence Coalition

The Problem Before This Case

Trial courts across Washington were inconsistently applying the weapon surrender law in protection orders. Many courts were:

• Not ordering weapon surrender at all, or
• Ruling that the law was unconstitutional

This inconsistency was based on an earlier court decision (State v. Flannery) that found problems with an older version of the weapon surrender law.

What This Case Was About

A person subject to a domestic violence protection order challenged Washington’s updated weapon surrender law. He claimed it violated several constitutional rights:

• 2nd Amendment: Right to bear arms
• 4th Amendment: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure
• 5th Amendment: Protection against self-incrimination
• Separation of powers: Claim that the legislature overstepped by telling courts how to enforce these orders

The Court’s Decision

The Washington Court of Appeals Division I ruled that the updated weapon surrender law is constitutional. Here’s how they addressed each challenge:

2nd Amendment (Right to Bear Arms)

• Court’s ruling: People subject to domestic violence protection orders can be prohibited from having weapons
• Why: The court cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Rahimi, which supports this limitation

4th Amendment (Search and Seizure)

• Court’s ruling: No constitutional violation
• Why: When someone is required to turn in weapons under a court order, they are doing it themselves – the government isn’t searching or seizing anything

5th Amendment (Self-Incrimination)

• Court’s ruling: No constitutional violation
• Why: The law gives people immunity from prosecution related to surrendering firearms, so they can’t be forced to incriminate themselves

Separation of Powers

• Court’s ruling: The legislature did not overstep its authority
• Why: Each branch of government remains independent, and the legislature can outline procedures for courts to follow

What This Means

Survivors across Washington state can now rely on this decision to ensure that trial courts will:

• Issue orders requiring abusers to surrender weapons
• Enforce these orders consistently

This removes the confusion that existed before, where some courts refused to issue these potentially life-saving orders.

Current Status

Important Update: In late July 2025, the person who challenged the law asked the Washington Supreme Court to review this decision. The case may still be appealed to the state’s highest court.

Bottom Line

This decision clarifies that Washington’s weapon surrender law is constitutional and must be applied consistently across the state to protect domestic violence survivors.

View the slip opinion