By Laura Groves and Peyton Healy
As we all know, one of the most stressful but imperative requests an attorney or pro-se litigant can make to the court is to seek a protection order. Laura Groves and Peyton Healy are attorneys with backgrounds in both Family and Dependency law. Laura has been practicing for 19 years, and Peyton has been practicing for four years. We write this article today as we have observed both positives and negatives in practice and in court caused by the changes to Chapter 7.105 of the Revised Code of Washington that went into effect July 1, 2022.
The legislative intent behind RCW Chapter 7.105 law change was to create a “no wrong door” policy to the law. The former law required a litigant to file for a Protection Order under six separate statutes depending on the kind of protection order one was pursuing. If a litigant failed to file under the correct statute prior to this law change, their petition would be denied. Now, if a litigant checks for instance the Domestic Violence section of the petition, as opposed to Antiharassment, the court can correct and grant the petition so long as there is merit to grant the protection order. This change in our observations, has been incredibly helpful, specifically for pro-se litigants.
The changes to the statute have also expanded it to include coercive control, which has allowed victims to request protection orders based on behaviors that were previously not considered under the statute, but that have long been recognized to be domestic violence. RCW 7.105.010 includes a list of behaviors that might be considered coercive control. This list is not an exhaustive list and gives judicial officials the ability to use their experience and knowledge to determine if behavior is meant to control another individual in a manner that is abusive.
As a result of the expanded statute, it appears that there has been an increase in pro-se litigants regarding protection orders. This insinuates the legislative intent of lessening the burden on pro-se litigants is successful in terms of access to justice. However, this change has had the negative impact of slowing down the court as they handle these matters, as many pro-se litigants do not understand issues such as service, how to file, or when a party should be appointed a lawyer.
In our observations of court in Snohomish, King, and Peirce County, it has become apparent that the increase in pro-se litigants have slowed down the court’s ability to move quickly for the docket. The court is spending a fair amount of time explaining the basic court processes to pro-se litigants. While there are self-help resources online, regarding protection orders, they are not sufficient. These resources often lack county specific information, and county websites are not always intuitive on how to find information on the process, even for attorneys.
We propose that the online resources are updated to include local court rule guidance. At a minimum that links to local court rules are provided to assist pro-se litigants in finding the court local court rules. We also propose that more examples of what constitutes domestic violence, coercive control, etc., are provided for pro-se litigants. In our observations, the lay understanding of domestic violence fails to consider the nuances between a family member, roommate, or neighbor. These changes to materials already in existence, would likely reduce the burden on the court, and make the dockets move more swiftly.
Laura Groves and Peyton Healy are family law attorneys with Meridian Family Law. Our contact information is lgroves@meridianfamily.com and phealy@meridianfamilylaw.com.
