Uncategorized

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.

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.

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.

Christy Porter was FVAP Washington’s very first client in Washington state in 2021. After over a year and a half, on December 27, 2022, she finally received the news she’s been waiting to hear.

In a published opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals agreed with Christy — the trial court should not have ordered joint decision-making in her parenting plan because the trial court had found the other party had a history of domestic violence. The trial court mistakenly reasoned that because the other party’s convictions were years in the past, that it had discretion not to follow the plain language of the statute. RCW 26.09.191(1) does not give the court discretion to deviate from the mandatory limitations on decision-making and dispute resolution. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanding to the trial court for entry of a finding of a history of domestic violence, and a parenting plan that follows the statute.

FVAP co-counseled this appeal with FVAP Board member Joanna McCallum, Partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, along with Manatt Partner Jessamyn Vedro.

Early in the case, our client also asked the appellate court for an Order of Indigency to cover the costs of the appeal, which includes a transcript quoted at nearly $10,000. This very rare motion was granted by the Washington Supreme Court.

Joanna McCallum made the journey all the way from Atlanta to argue before a panel at the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, in-person, on November 9, 2022 in Seattle.