Sandra Smith v. Joshua Smith
76247-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Sandra Lynn Smith (petitioner) sought a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) against her husband Joshua Smith after reporting physical abuse, controlling behavior, and threats; Sandra's stepdaughter later alleged long‑term sexual abuse by Joshua.
- Joshua was concurrently criminally charged (including rape of a child and witness tampering). He repeatedly sought continuances of the DVPO hearing to avoid prejudicing his criminal defense.
- The superior court granted multiple continuances but ultimately denied further delay and heard the DVPO on the merits; Joshua presented no evidence and the court issued a one‑year DVPO protecting Sandra and the children.
- Joshua appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by refusing to stay the civil DVPO while criminal proceedings were pending and that his due process rights were violated.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s discretionary stay decision under the eight‑factor balancing test established in King v. Olympic Pipe Line Co., and reviewed due process de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sandra) | Defendant's Argument (Joshua) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a stay of the DVPO while parallel criminal charges were pending | DVPOs are special civil proceedings designed for quick access; delay would prejudice the victim and children and frustrate the DVPA's purpose | Criminal charges overlap with DVPO allegations and invoking the Fifth Amendment in the civil hearing would force Joshua to choose between testifying and self‑incrimination; stay required | No abuse of discretion. Applying Olympic Pipe Line factors, court reasonably found the special nature of DVPOs and the substantial prejudice to the victim/children outweighed Fifth Amendment concerns and denied a stay |
| Whether proceeding with the DVPO before resolution of the criminal case denied Joshua due process | DVPA procedures protect respondent's rights; prompt relief and statutory procedures satisfy due process | Proceeding while criminal case pending deprived Joshua of a meaningful opportunity to be heard without self‑incrimination concerns | No due process violation. Chapter 26.50 RCW provides the constitutionally required procedural protections; the hearing was timely and meaningful |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Olympic Pipe Line Co., 104 Wn. App. 338, 16 P.3d 45 (2000) (establishes eight‑factor test for stays when civil and criminal proceedings parallel)
- Aiken v. Aiken, 187 Wn.2d 491, 387 P.3d 680 (2017) (holds DVPA procedures satisfy respondent's due process rights)
- Gourley v. Gourley, 158 Wn.2d 460, 145 P.3d 1185 (2006) (rules evidence rules may not apply in DVPO special proceedings)
- Ikeda v. Curtis, 43 Wn.2d 449, 261 P.2d 684 (1953) (adverse inference may be drawn from invocation of Fifth Amendment in civil case)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for assessing required process under the Due Process Clause)