Jennifer Wiley, And David Wiley
74818-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2016Background
- Jennifer and David Wiley, married with three children, separated after Jennifer filed for dissolution; parties initially continued cohabiting under temporary family law orders.
- Jennifer petitioned for a domestic violence protection order (DVPO), alleging escalating threats, discovery of bullet‑riddled shooting paper targets placed near her closet, and that David had slapped their son.
- An ex parte commissioner directed Jennifer to seek relief in family court; a full hearing was held on February 1, 2016.
- The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a threat of domestic violence and entered a protection order effective one year.
- David appealed, contending lack of substantial evidence, improper admission of hearsay, due process violations, estoppel defenses, and improper questioning about his religious beliefs.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed and awarded appellate attorney fees to Jennifer under RCW 26.50.060.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jennifer) | Defendant's Argument (David) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of discretion / Substantial evidence for DV threat | Evidence (petition, photos, nurse/pediatrician/counselor declarations, victim statement) shows escalating threats and injury to child supporting DVPO | Photographs don’t show targets in closet; no proof David injured children; trial court improperly considered private materials | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports finding of a threat of domestic violence; appellate court will not reweigh credibility |
| Admissibility of hearsay in DVPO proceedings | Hearsay statements properly considered under DVPO statutory scheme and rules | Objected to hearsay (police statements) as inadmissible | Affirmed — ER 1101(c)(4) and precedent permit relaxed evidentiary rules in chapter 26.50 proceedings |
| Due process (ex parte order; time for argument; reliance on child injury) | Procedures in chapter 26.50 satisfy due process; petitioner entitled to relief | Ex parte temporary order, unequal courtroom time, and reliance on unalleged child injury violated due process | Affirmed — statutory procedures meet Mathews balancing; no denial of meaningful hearing; record supports child‑injury finding |
| Judicial/equitable estoppel (inconsistent positions) | Jennifer’s evolving allegations reflect changing facts and are consistent across proceedings | Prior statements in dissolution proceedings preclude contradictory claims in DVPO matter | Affirmed — no clear inconsistent positions or justifiable reliance; estoppel not shown |
| Court questioning about religious beliefs | Court’s questions were clarification about alleged religious basis for corporal punishment | Questions violated ER 610 and constitutional protection against religious questioning; showed judicial bias | Affirmed — questions were clarifying, did not impugn credibility on religious grounds, and record shows decision based on evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gourley v. Gourley, 158 Wn.2d 460 (2006) (procedures in chapter 26.50 satisfy due process for protection orders)
- Arkison v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 160 Wn.2d 535 (2007) (judicial estoppel doctrine and its purpose)
- Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801 (1992) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- In re Parentage of T.W.J., 193 Wn. App. 1 (2016) (abuse of discretion review for protection order issuance)
- Hecker v. Cortinas, 110 Wn. App. 865 (2002) (permitting relaxed evidentiary rules in protection order cases)
- Spence v. Kaminski, 103 Wn. App. 325 (2000) (prior decisions recognizing that history and petitioner’s fear can support imminent threat finding)
- Mellor v. Chamberlin, 100 Wn.2d 643 (1983) (attorney fees available when authorized by statute; appellate fee recovery for prevailing party)