Georgina Edme Sandoval-sanchez, V. William Joseph Blackwell, 54535-7

On Dec. 24, 2019, Georgina Sandoval‑Sanchez petitioned for a domestic violence protection order against William Blackwell seeking protection for herself and two daughters: AG (age four) and AB (age one; Blackwell’s biological child).
A temporary protection order was entered the same day covering Sandoval‑Sanchez and both children.
At the contested hearing, Sandoval‑Sanchez testified to repeated physical assaults (including while pregnant and after AB’s birth), threats to kill her, and incidents occurring in front of the children; a coworker corroborated visible injuries. She testified she feared for the children’s safety.
Blackwell denied most allegations, accused Sandoval‑Sanchez of being the abusive party, and sought to maintain contact with AB; a former landlord offered testimony supporting Blackwell’s account about mutual conflict.
The trial court issued a final protection order protecting Sandoval‑Sanchez and AG but excluded AB and expressly authorized limited visitation for Blackwell with AB; the court said it had not “heard anything that the child is at risk,” and no written findings explaining AB’s exclusion were entered.
Sandoval‑Sanchez appealed, arguing AB should have been designated a protected party and the court failed to make the written findings required by statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not including AB as a protected party	AB was exposed to domestic violence against her mother and Sandoval‑Sanchez feared Blackwell might harm AB; under Rodriguez this supports protecting the child	Blackwell disputed the allegations, said he was not a threat, and sought to continue parenting AB; trial court stated it heard no evidence that AB was at risk	Remand: record does not show the court considered the Rodriguez factors regarding AB; exclusion of AB must be reconsidered and, if needed, supported by written findings
Whether the court’s failure to enter written findings under RCW 26.50.060(7) was reversible error	The statute requires written reasons when declining to protect a child; none were entered here	No appellate response from Blackwell; trial court made oral statements that might be relied on	Remand: because the oral ruling does not disclose consideration of relevant factors or credibility, the court must reconsider and enter adequate written findings if it again excludes AB

Rodriguez v. Zavala, 188 Wn.2d 586 (2017) (child’s exposure to domestic violence constitutes domestic violence; a parent’s fear for a child can justify a protection order)
State v. Miller, 92 Wn. App. 693 (1998) (failure to enter required written findings may be harmless only if oral findings suffice for appellate review)