Karen L. Fischer v. Bruce A. Fischer
49471-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Bruce and Karen Fischer divorced after findings of domestic violence; an initial protection order was entered August 18, 2006, with various modifications and annual renewals thereafter.
- The 2006 order originally covered Karen and the parties' minor children; both children later became adults and the court acknowledged adults are excluded from the order.
- In July 2014 the court renewed the order and expressly stated Christina (who turned 18) was no longer covered; renewal noted Bruce had not completed court-ordered domestic violence treatment.
- Karen petitioned in July 2016 to renew and sought a longer duration (stating past abuse and present fear because Bruce refused treatment).
- The trial court renewed the protection order on July 29, 2016 and extended it 20 years (through July 29, 2036); the order directed entry into law enforcement systems.
- Bruce appealed, raising multiple arguments (procedural, constitutional, statutory) and seeking clarification that adult children were excluded; the Court of Appeals affirmed but remanded to clarify that adult children are excluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Karen) | Defendant's Argument (Bruce) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly renewed/extended the protection order | Renewal proper because petitioner showed past abuse and present fear; respondent failed to complete treatment | Renewal improper because order renewed an earlier (2006) order and allegedly continued legal jeopardy; claimed lack of basis for domestic violence finding | Court: Renewal and 20-year extension did not abuse discretion; petitioner met statutory standard; affirmed |
| Whether the renewed order improperly includes adult children | Karen understood renewal excluded adult children (2014 renewal had said so) | Bruce argued the renewed order referenced the 2006 order and thus might still include adult children | Court: Adult children are not covered; remand for the trial court to issue a clarified order expressly excluding the adult children |
| Whether RCW 26.50.130 / Freeman (modification/termination of permanent orders) applied | Renewal statute (RCW 26.50.060) governs; petitioner need not show new act, only past abuse and present fear | Bruce argued substantial change in circumstances and invoked Freeman factors for terminating a permanent order | Court: RCW 26.50.130 and Freeman govern termination/modification of permanent orders, not routine renewals; they do not apply here |
| Whether various constitutional and federal-law claims should be considered | (Not developed by Karen) | Bruce alleged multiple constitutional violations, Fifth Amendment coercion, due process, §1983, §241, and other grievances | Court: Did not consider these arguments because Bruce failed to provide legal authority, record citations, or substantive argument; issues rejected for inadequate appellate development |
Key Cases Cited
- Muma v. Muma, 115 Wn. App. 1 (2003) (protection order no longer applies to a child after turning 18)
- Barber v. Barber, 136 Wn. App. 512 (2006) (standard of review and requirements for renewal under RCW 26.50.060)
- In re Marriage of Freeman, 169 Wn.2d 664 (2010) (factors and statutory scheme governing modification or termination of permanent protection orders)
- Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801 (1992) (appellate courts are not required to search the record for unsupported arguments)
- In re Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wn. App. 42 (2007) (issues unsupported by legal authority need not be considered on appeal)