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