Frockt bill would help keep protection orders in place
OLYMPIA—Domestic violence survivors want legal assurances that long-term protection orders will stay in place unless there is clear proof their abusers will never abuse them again.
On Monday, domestic violence survivors will ask the House Judiciary Committee to approve a law proposed by state Rep. David Frockt (D-North Seattle) that would help them to keep long-term protection against their abusers.
“Victims of domestic violence are terrified they will be victimized again by abusers who know how to exploit loopholes in our laws concerning long-term protection orders,” said Frockt. “I’ve worked with Legal Voice and the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence to draft a law that will fix the problems and protect the victims’ safety and peace of mind.
House Bill 1565 addresses a critical gap in how Washington courts handle requests to terminate domestic violence protection orders.
Courts issue protection orders to keep perpetrators of domestic violence away from their victims. In cases where an abuser poses a lasting threat, a court may issue a long-term or permanent order. However, the abuser can ask the court to terminate a protection order at any time. The problem is that the Legislature has not established any guidelines for courts to consider when an abuser asks for a long-term or permanent protection order to be terminated.
The absence of guidelines recently led to a Washington Supreme Court decision that many experts believe poses dangerous risks for domestic violence survivors who have obtained long-term protection orders. The decision—In re Marriage of Freeman—effectively requires domestic violence victims to re-prove the need for the protection order in order to prevent it from being terminated at the abuser’s request.
“The Freeman decision is extremely problematic,” said Nan Stoops, executive director of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “If a court order is actually working to keep an abuser away, the victim would be unable to prove current and reasonable fear. Permanent, reliable protection orders are an essential component of long-term safety planning for many victims.”
“Once a victim has proven that a long-term protection order is needed, the abuser should have the burden of proof to show the protection is no longer needed—and there should be a high threshold for meeting that burden,” Frockt said. “Putting the burden of proof on the victims of domestic violence is dangerous and wrong.
House Bill 1565 establishes guidelines for courts to use when deciding whether to terminate long-term domestic violence protection orders. Abusers seeking to terminate such an order would have to prove there has been a substantial change in circumstances that makes it unlikely that they would ever harm their victim again if the order were terminated. The bill also specifies that victims do not have to re-prove that their fear of the abuser is justified in order to keep their protection order in place.
“After the Supreme Court decision, lawyers who represent abusers were saying that no domestic- violence protection order in the state is safe anymore,” said David Ward, a staff attorney at Legal Voice. “This bill fixes that problem and will help more victims remain protected.”
“We applaud Rep. Frockt’s leadership in providing the courts with legislative guidance to protect the rights and safety of victims in our state” said Stoops.
# # #