Appeals Court Reverses Protection Order Vacatur Over Flawed Assessment
The Washington State Court of Appeals Division I has overturned a King County Superior Court decision that had dissolved a domestic violence protection order, citing serious deficiencies in a psychiatric evaluation relied upon by the lower court. In an unpublished opinion issued today, the appellate panel identified "significant flaws" within a domestic violence assessment conducted by Dr. William Singer of the Northwest Evaluation Center.
The ruling arrives less than three weeks following reports that the Department of Social and Health Services issued a "founded" finding against Dr. Singer and his center for failing to meet state standards regarding domestic violence assessments.
Regulatory Violations Cited
The case involved a respondent seeking to terminate a protection order that shielded his former spouse and children. The lower court’s decision to vacate the order relied heavily on an evaluation provided by Dr. Singer.
Dr. Singer’s report assigned the respondent a "Level 0" rating, asserting that the individual showed no abusive behaviors and did not require specialized intervention. Consequently, the evaluator recommended standard individual therapy rather than certified domestic violence treatment.
However, the Court of Appeals determined that the lower court abused its discretion by relying on this specific evaluation to conclude that the respondent had altered his behavior. The appellate panel identified critical failures in Dr. Singer’s methodology, noting that the assessment relied primarily on the respondent’s self-reporting, specifically citing Singer’s note that the man “denies all DV.”
More critically, the court highlighted that Dr. Singer assigned the “Level 0” designation because “no arrests or charges stemmed” from police calls regarding the respondent. The appellate opinion stated that reliance on a lack of arrests violates the standards established in the Washington Administrative Code.
“The recommended level of treatment must not be diminished by factors such as the absence of legal charges,” the court wrote, citing WAC 388-60B-0400(19)(f)(i).
The court further noted that the absence of legal charges is not a “reasonable and valid rationale” for recommending individual therapy over state-certified domestic violence treatment when intimate partner violence has occurred.
The appellate court reversed the Superior Court’s decision to vacate the protection order, reinstating the full protection for the petitioner. The court also awarded attorney fees to the petitioner for the cost of the appeal.