[WSBAPT] civil harassment statues

[Andrekita Silva]

  Law Office of
F.ANDREKITA SILVA
_______________________________________________________  
                                                             
April 21, 2022
 
Roger,
 
The district court was addressing only the second prong of what is required.
 
The 2002 Stockbridge case addresses the burden of proof. According to  
RCW 10.14.080(5), a two- step process is required. First, the  
Petitioner must state the reasons why they seek to review the  
anti-harassment protection order.  If they do that (and the court is  
persuaded by the reasons) the court must grant the petition “unless  
the respondent proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the  
respondent will not resume harassment.“
 
This is unlike a domestic violence protection order where a new act of  
violence is NOT required for extension of the order.  So, not easy,  
but not as hard in antiharassment for a perpetrator to rid themselves  
of the order.

So, in a DV case, a perpetrator could move to another state and that,  
alone would never be enough to stop renewal.

But, in antiharassment, if one neighbor A got a protection order  
against neighbor B because neighbor B verbally abused them every time  
they saw them outside the house, if they were both renters, and B's  
lease ended and B moved out of state, and if the only abuse ever  
occurred in person, I suspect it would be hard to get a renewal.   If  
A and B were both homeowners, still living next door, I suspect it  
could be easier for A to show "reasons" for seeking the renewal. Then,  
that burden would shift to B.  

So, the judge may have misunderstood the law , or you only heard part  
of what went on.  
 
andrekita
Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, Washington 98101
206-224-8288
www.seattle-silvalaw.com

Quoting Roger Hawkes <Roger at law-hawks.com>:

>  
>
>     
>
>     
>
>     
>
>     
>
>     
>
>      FROM: roger hawkeshomeoffice.com
> SENT: Thursday, April 21, 2022 4:17 PM
> TO: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> SUBJECT: civil harassment statues
>
>       
>
>     
>
>     
>
>     
>
>    I recently heard a district court judge say that renewal of a  
> civil antiharassment order would be renewed unless the defendant  
> could prove by a preponderance that further harassment would not  
> happen.  I don’t see how that ‘proof’ is possible unless the  
> defendant dies.  Does anyone else have a problem with this?
>
>     

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20220421/cb4dedea/attachment.html>