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

Uncategorized

Washington Legal Victory! Stocks v. Porter

by

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.

2021 Annual Report

by

We are excited to share our 2021 Annual Report. Our success is driven by the dedicated staff, volunteers and board members here at FVAP. As we look forward, we know we will continue to face uphill battles…we remain committed to advancing social justice and racial equity in our communities. 

Read our complete 2021 Annual Report here. 

Washington Legal Victory! Mishko v. Kerr

by

Mishko v. Kerr (WA)

Our request for publication of Mishko v. Kerr was granted! You can find the published opinion here. 

Why the case is important:
This publication will clarify when a trial court does not enter findings under RCW 26.09.191(1) and therefore errs in granting joint-decision making. It will also outline what constitutes substantial evidence of domestic violence. Additionally, the opinion specifically addresses continuing restraining order requests under Ch. 26.09 RCW and clarifies that substantial evidence of a history of domestic violence requires a court to consider a litigant’s request for a continuing restraining order.

Summary of the case:
After a trial to modify a parenting plan, the trial court entered limitations against the opposing party (“OP”) finding that he had engaged in “abusive use of conflict.”  The court found that communications toward the mother were abusive as well as cited several behaviors aimed at the minor child.  The trial court noted OP had completed a domestic violence treatment program.  The trial court also heard testimony about OP’s past domestic violence and admitted into evidence a current Domestic Violence Protection Order against OP (filed by a different intimate partner and mother of OP’s other child).  However, no ultimate findings of “a history of domestic violence” were entered into the final parenting plan, and the trial court granted joint decision-making to the parties.  The unambiguous statutory standard is that “a history of acts of domestic violence” mandates sole decision-making to the parent without a domestic violence finding.

The court agreed with FVAP that the trial court did not enter restrictions that limited joint-decision making despite substantial evidence of a history of domestic violence presented at the hearing and instructed on remand that the trial court must consider the request for a restraining order in light of that evidence

California Legal Victory! Y.L v L.T.

by

In Y.L. v. L.T., FVAP successfully co-counseled with Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP to file an Amicus Brief in support of L.T. In this case Y.L., the abusive party, filed an appeal after the trial court denied his request for a reciprocal domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against L.T. On appeal Y.L. argued that there should be a bright-line rule that when someone reacts to emotional abuse with physical violence that person should be deemed a “primary aggressor” and a DVRO should be entered against them. The appellate court rejected Y.L.’s argument. The appellate court noted that, in mutual restraining order cases, 1) the trial court must determine which party is the most significant aggressor based on factors listed in Penal Code section 836 subd. (c)(3) and 2) the court must “consider the parties’ alleged acts of domestic violence in concert, and not separately” to determine whether someone is a primary aggressor. Our Amicus Brief addressed 1) how gender bias helps perpetuate erroneous primary-aggressor and self-defense determinations; 2) the detrimental effects of mutual-restraining orders on survivors, and 3) the need for courts to conduct detailed analysis in mutual restraining order cases to account for the history of abuse in the relationship and avoid inherent bias and stereotypes in domestic violence situations.

Read the unpublished opinion here. 

Washington Legal Victory! Protecting Survivors from Litigation Abuse

by

Our client Isabelle Latour was successful in defending against her ex-husband’s multiple (we lost count after 4) appeals.  The Washington Court of Appeals held that Washington’s new statute preventing abusive litigation, ch 26.51 RCW, is constitutional, and survives separations of powers and due process challenges.  Washington is one of the first states nationwide with a strong abusive litigation statute, so this facial constitutional challenge to the statute could have had far-reaching implications and hindered states’ ability to try to curtail abusive litigation, which abusers use to continue their financial abuse and power and control over survivors of DV.  
 
The court further found that, as applied to Isabelle’s case, there was substantial evidence to find she was a victim of domestic violence, and the abuser’s litigation was done to harass, intimidate, and maintain contact with Isabelle.  Isabelle is very happy (but also expecting Sean to continue to litigate this matter).  The court’s opinion is unpublished, so we will be pursuing publication. 
 

Read the unpublished opinion here.

California Legal Victory! Keeping Survivors Housed

by

Weil V. Gallegos (CA)

FVAP’s client lived with her boyfriend who was abusive.  Survivor requested a DVRO with a move out order, which would have excluded her boyfriend from their shared rental unit. The trial court granted the DVRO, but denied the move-out order stating it was up to the landlord, not the court, to decide who got to stay in the unit. Survivor appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed because a trial court has the power to order a restrained party to move out of a shared rental unit and a landlord does not have the authority to force just one tenant out of a shared rental unit.

FVAP thinks this is an important case because it is the first case explaining trial courts’ authority to grant move-out orders when parties live together in a rental unit.  Specifically, it plainly states that courts may grant move out orders excluding the restrained party from the shared rented home and may make orders regarding lease and utility payments. If published, this case may encourage more trial courts to grant move out orders, allowing more survivors to stay housed and avoid homelessness.

It also reinforces tenant protections against “self-help” evictions, which is when a landlord kicks out a tenant without going through the court eviction process. By explaining that a landlord cannot change the unit’s lock to lock out a tenant without a move-out order and by explaining the landlord’s obligation to go through the eviction process to regain possession of a premises, this opinion reinforces existing laws against self-help evictions.

FVAP has requested publication of this case. 

 

View the unpublished case.