In Re Julie Brannberg v. Joseph Brannberg
76029-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 6, 2017Background
- Parents Joseph and Julie Brannberg share four daughters; a 2009 parenting plan provided equal residential time.
- Julie petitioned for a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) in March 2015 on behalf of two daughters (M.B., age 11; K.B., age 13), alleging incidents of yelling, table-pounding, threats, and an earlier choking/neck-gripping episode years prior.
- The commissioner issued a temporary DVPO, held a two-day hearing with testimony and declarations (including therapists and a sealed GAL report), and entered written findings and a one-year DVPO in June 2015.
- Joseph moved to revise the commissioner’s order, arguing internal inconsistencies in findings (e.g., labeling the March 2015 incident both domestic violence and not a risk of imminent bodily harm) and contesting specific factual findings.
- The superior court reviewed the record, disagreed with several of the commissioner’s specific findings but affirmed the DVPO as to both daughters on the basis that the record supported a finding of domestic violence and reasonable fear of imminent physical harm; the court issued an oral ruling but did not enter written findings and conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Julie) | Defendant's Argument (Joseph) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commissioner abused discretion by limiting cross-examination/time | Commissioner’s time management was proper; both parties had opportunity and could submit declarations | Time limits prevented adequate presentation and cross-examination | No abuse of discretion; commissioner permitted written evidence and placed reasonable limits |
| Whether superior court should have vacated DVPO given commissioner’s internally inconsistent findings | Record supports DVPO for M.B. and K.B.; superior court may adopt or revise commissioner findings | Commissioner’s findings were contradictory and insufficient to support DVPO; revision required | Superior court properly reviewed record de novo, concluded record supports DVPO, denied revision |
| Whether oral ruling without written findings suffices when superior court disagrees with some commissioner findings | Oral ruling based on record supports denial of revision; written findings required for finality | Absence of written findings means court implicitly adopted contradictory commissioner findings | Court’s oral ruling supports denial but remanded to enter written findings and conclusions |
| Whether DVPO appeal is moot given expiration | DVPO affects parenting-plan determinations under RCW 26.09.191; appeal not moot | DVPO expired, but party argues mootness | Appeal is not moot because DVPO has collateral legal consequences for parenting plan decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Aiken v. Aiken, 387 P.3d 680 (Wash. 2017) (commissioner has broad discretion to regulate cross-examination in DVPO hearings)
- In re Marriage of Stewart, 137 P.3d 25 (Wash. Ct. App.) (reviewing grant/denial of protection order for abuse of discretion)
- In re Parentage of T.W.J., 367 P.3d 607 (Wash. Ct. App.) (standard of review for DVPO decisions)
- In re Marriage of Chandola, 327 P.3d 644 (Wash. 2014) (abuse of discretion defined as manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds)
- State v. Ramer, 86 P.3d 132 (Wash. 2004) (superior court reviews commissioner findings de novo on revision)
- Ferree v. Doric Co., 383 P.2d 900 (Wash. 1963) (oral rulings lack final effect unless incorporated into an order)