Allyah Ayesh v. Jonathan M. Bullis, 47794-7

Background

In Feb 2014 a commissioner entered a one-year protection order against Jonathan Bullis after finding he perpetrated domestic violence against Allyah Ayesh; the order required Bullis to “participate in treatment and counseling” compliant with RCW 26.50.150 and WAC chapter 388-60, and to sign releases so providers could contact Ayesh.
Bullis was evaluated by STOP, a program representing it is WAC-compliant; STOP concluded Bullis did not display power/control issues and recommended he continue mental-health counseling and medication instead of domestic-violence treatment; Bullis did not enroll in STOP’s program.
In Feb 2015 Ayesh moved to renew the protection order; at the renewal hearing she testified she still feared Bullis and that no provider had contacted her despite the release requirement; the commissioner renewed the order to Feb 2016, finding Bullis had not complied with the treatment requirement.
Bullis moved to revise the renewal order, submitting the STOP evaluation and claiming compliance; at the revision hearing the superior court found Bullis had not enrolled in the ordered domestic-violence program and denied revision.
Bullis sought reconsideration but did not receive the revision transcript before the reconsideration deadline; he argued (1) STOP’s decision satisfied the treatment requirement, (2) the court’s comment suggesting he sought an easier assessment showed bias, and (3) withholding the transcript prejudiced him; the superior court denied reconsideration.
On appeal Bullis argued the superior court abused its discretion and denied him a fair hearing; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the court acted within its authority, had tenable grounds to renew, and did not show bias or deny a fair hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ayesh)	Defendant's Argument (Bullis)	Held
Whether submitting to an evaluation that recommends no domestic-violence program satisfies a protection order requiring "participation" in treatment	Court may enforce the order and require compliant treatment; petitioner need only show fear and past abuse to renew	STOP’s evaluation that Bullis did not need its program constitutes compliance with the order’s treatment/counseling requirement	Held: "Participate" requires enrolling in a RCW 26.50.150 / WAC 388-60 domestic-violence program; STOP’s recommendation not to enroll did not satisfy the order because Bullis never enrolled
Whether the superior court abused discretion in renewing the protection order	Renewal appropriate where petitioner shows past abuse and present reasonable fear; court may deny revision if respondent fails to prove non-recidivism	Renewal was unwarranted because Bullis had no contact with Ayesh and thus proved he would not reoffend	Held: No abuse of discretion; Ayesh showed past abuse and present reasonable fear; Bullis failed to prove by a preponderance he would not resume violence
Whether the superior court substituted its judgment for the treatment provider’s judgment	Court must defer to certified providers about treatment need	Court improperly substituted its opinion for STOP’s by requiring enrollment despite STOP’s recommendation	Held: Court acted within authority; ordering enrollment is authorized and WAC defines ‘‘participant’’ as one enrolled, so court did not usurp provider role
Whether the court’s comment and delayed transcript denied Bullis a fair hearing / violated appearance of fairness	Court’s comment that Bullis may have sought an assessment to avoid treatment and late transcript approval indicated bias and prejudiced reconsideration	The comment was a permissible observation in context; transcript delay was administrative and did not show actual bias or unfairness	Held: No violation of due process or appearance-of-fairness; a reasonable observer would find the hearing neutral and impartial

Key Cases Cited

Barber v. Barber, 136 Wn. App. 512 (court of appeals) (standard for reviewing renewal decisions and abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12 (Supreme Court of Washington) (abuse of discretion/reversal standard)
Knight v. Knight, 178 Wn. App. 929 (court of appeals) (de novo review for legal questions)
In re Marriage of Freeman, 169 Wn.2d 664 (Supreme Court of Washington) (present reasonable fear can justify renewal without new acts)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against King, 168 Wn.2d 888 (Supreme Court of Washington) (appearance of fairness standard)
State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161 (Supreme Court of Washington) (reasonable observer test for bias)
State v. Chamberlin, 161 Wn.2d 30 (Supreme Court of Washington) (fair hearing/due process principles)
Rivers v. Wash. State Conf. of Mason Contractors, 145 Wn.2d 674 (Supreme Court of Washington) (standard for reconsideration discretionary review)
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. Supreme Court) (due process prohibits actual bias and probability of unfairness)