<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
</head>
<body style="font-family:Arial;font-size:14px">
<p>Law Office of<br>
<strong>F.ANDREKITA SILVA</strong><br>
<strong>_______________________________________________________ </strong><br>
<br>
April 21, 2022<br>
<br>
Roger,<br>
<br>
The district court was addressing only the second prong of what is required.<br>
<br>
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.“<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
So, in a DV case, a perpetrator could move to another state and that, alone would never be enough to stop renewal.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
So, the judge may have misunderstood the law , or you only heard part of what went on. <br>
<br>
andrekita<br>
Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva<br>
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2000<br>
Seattle, Washington 98101<br>
206-224-8288<br>
www.seattle-silvalaw.com<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Quoting Roger Hawkes <<a href="mailto:Roger@law-hawks.com">Roger@law-hawks.com</a>>:</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid blue;margin-left:2px;padding-left:12px;" type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> roger hawkeshomeoffice.com<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 21, 2022 4:17 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> civil harassment statues</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
<br>
<br></p>
</body>
</html>