Stalking is a serious issue in our society, and it should not be treated lightly. Oftentimes, family law courts issue Protection Orders against abusive ex-partners. These orders seek to prevent ex-partners from having any physical encounters with their victims. However, as society continues to progress, protection orders frequently become futile because stalkers have been finding new ways to get in touch with their victims. For example, today, stalkers are increasingly using stalking apps to secretly track their victims mobile devices and computers. This blog post will describe what stalking apps are, how to know whether someone is stalking you, and how to prevent it.

To begin with, stalking applications are apps that stalkers can download to their victims mobile devices to track or monitor their victims. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2016/09/whos-stalking-what-know-about-mobile-spyware. These apps provide stalkers with an enormous amount of information by giving them access to their victims’ (1) text messages; (2) emails messages; (3) photos; (4) account passwords; (5) etc. Stalkers usually gain access to this personal information without their former partner even knowing about it. Therefore, stalking apps allow stalkers to continue having control over their victims, making protection orders seem like a mere formality. These apps allow stalkers to get revenge against their victims by allowing them to display personal photos to the public, and by allowing them to gain access to their victims’ finances.

Victims of stalking can use many clues to determine whether their perpetrator is stalking them using a stalking app. For example, victims can think about whether their abuser had physical access to their phone; whether their victims know very detailed and specific information about their victims; whether the phone’s battery drains faster, even though their is no difference in the amount of phone usage; and whether they ever have trouble in getting their phones to turn on. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2016/09/whos-stalking-what-know-about-mobile-spyware. All of these factors can help victims determine whether they are being stalked, and this will allow them to take quicker and more appropriate action to prevent foreseeable harm in the future.

After determining whether a stalker is stalking their victim using stalking applications, it is very important for the victim to take quick and immediate action so that he or she can avoid any potential harm in the future. The first action that the victim should take is to get help. This can be done by alerting law enforcement, and seeking help from domestic violence advocates. Other, preventative actions can be taken as well. For example, backing up your phone can help save any potential evidence of abusive behavior. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2016/09/whos-stalking-what-know-about-mobile-spyware. By conserving evidence, victims of stalking are more likely to prevail in court and incentivize judges to issue more harsh and severe punishments against their stalkers. Harsher consequences will deter stalkers from committing any additional harm to their victims in the future. Last but not least, the most effective way to remove a stalking app from a phone is to reset it and re-install the manufacturer’s operating system. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2016/09/whos-stalking-what-know-about-mobile-spyware.

As I stated earlier, stalking is a recurring problem in today’s society. Protection Orders are increasingly becoming frivolous because stalkers are routinely finding new ways to stalk and harm their victims. To combat this problem, advocates need to spread awareness about stalking, and educate society about the new techniques that stalkers are using to harm their victims. By spreading awareness, victims will be able to seek help and prevent future harm more efficiently. As society continues to progress, education and awareness must progress as well.

Under RCW 7.21.030(b), contempt is defined as the intentional disobedience of a court order.

Contempt is a severe remedy, and judges do not find people in contempt unless the violation is serious. For example, in family law cases, serious violations typically arise when: (1) one parent refuses the other the court-ordered visitation they are entitled to; (2) one parent refuses to return the child at the expiration of the allotted time for visitation; (3) one parent refuses to take reasonable efforts to require a child to visit the other parent at the time the parenting plan states; (4) one ex-spouse does not deliver property to the other as ordered; (5) a parent fails to pay child support; and (6) a parent refuses to enforce temporary family law and restraining orders.

The main goal in issuing contempt orders is to incentivize the party in contempt to follow the original court-order in the future. To accomplish this goal, judges often order people to go to counseling, require them to complete parenting classes, order the person in contempt to work a certain number of hours a week, and order future hearings to confirm that the person is now obeying the order. However, if the person in contempt has violated a parenting plan, judges sometimes order that a parent get make-up residential time with their children. Equally important, under RCW 26.09.160(2), judges can also order greater penalties for the second contempt violation if it occurs within three years of the initial violation.

To prove contempt, one must prove: (1) there is a valid court order in effect; (2) the other person is aware about the court order; (3) the facts show a plain violation of the order; (4) the non-violating party has given notice to the person in contempt regarding a contempt hearing; and (5) content is the appropriate remedy for the violation of the court-order.

Because contempt of a parenting plan comes with greater consequences, the non-violating party must also prove three additional elements: (1) the violation was in bad faith; (2) the person intentionally violated the parenting plan; and (3) past sanctions have not caused the person to obey the order.

Family law courts are courts of equity and strive to maintain fairness. Because contempt orders cost a lot and hard to prove, judges frequently refrain from issuing them. However, sometimes they are the best remedy, especially when the person in contempt has violated a parenting plan. Parenting a child is a fundamental right in the United States, and holding a parent in contempt for violating a parenting plan is sometimes the best way to maintain this fundamental right. The reason for this is because as stated earlier, the sole purpose of contempt orders is to ensure the person in violation abide by the court-order in the future. Therefore, when deciding whether to fill out contempt form, the non-violating party should consider whether the court order is still in effect, whether they know about the court order, and because family law courts are courts of equity, whether the person has a reasonable excuse for the violation.

After weighing all these options, filing a contempt order is sometimes the best way in forcing the other party to obey the original court-order. When it comes to violation of a parenting plan, filing contempt papers is sometimes the best and only way in ensuring that parents can see their children as required by the court-ordered parenting plan.

Generally, divorced parents must pay child support until the child becomes of legal age. What do you do if you are a divorced parent who wishes to send your child to college but do not have the financial means to do so? One possible solution is to petition the court for a child support modification. In that modification, you can request post-secondary education support when the child becomes an adult, or before, if the issue arises.

In Washington State, postsecondary educational support is the court ordered payment parents have to make when their child decides to receive additional schooling after high school. Under Washington case law, Washington courts have determined that postsecondary educational expenses can include tuition, room and board, health fees, and insurance. http://www.genesislawfirm.com/post-secondary-support-child-support-college.

When the court decides whether to grant post-secondary education support, under RCW 26.19.090, the judge must first decide whether the child is “in fact dependent,” and relies on the parents for basic necessities. To make this determination, the judge considers the following factors: (1) the child’s age; (2) the child’s needs; (3) expectations of the parties for the child when they were together; (4) child’s prospects, desires, skills, abilities, or disabilities; (5) what kind of post-high school education the child wishes to pursue; (6) parents’/guardians level of education, standard of living, and resources; and (7) amount/type of support the child would have had if the parents stayed together.

After the judge determines whether the child is “in fact dependent” on his or her parents, the judge then considers three additional factors when deciding whether to award post-secondary education support. First, the judge weighs the obligor parent’s financial ability to pay and the value of the degree in question. If the obligor parent is financially comfortable and if the degree is likely to produce a high paying job, the more likely it is that the judge will order the obligor parent to pay for post-secondary education support.

Second, the judge considers whether the parents would have paid for college if their relationship did not fail. If the parents likely would have done so, the judge will be more inclined to grant support for the child’s education. This second factor can be difficult to prove because it is often difficult to find direct evidence that proves the parents would have paid for college if they did not separate. Therefore a parent petitioning the court for post-secondary education can offer circumstantial evidence such as prior agreements between the parents, whether the parents went to college themselves, and whether the parents’ parents put them through school.

Last but not least, the judge will take into account the child’s academic performance. The better the child performs in school and on college admission tests (such as the SAT), the more likely the judge will award post-secondary support. The reason for this is because the judge is evaluating the child’s likelihood of succeeding in school in order to determine whether it is even worth it to order post-secondary education support.

In conclusion, parents should take advantage of this option when considering to send their child to college. Not only do parents have an interest in seeing their children succeed, society does as well. If there are more educated people in society, there will be less poverty, crime, and the state will have to pay less money to support under-privileged citizens. Equally important, society will progress tremendously because there will be more people who have the ability to benefit the country as a result of their newly obtained knowledge.

On June 5, 2000, the Washington Supreme Court held that Section 26.10.160(3) of the Revised Code of Washington unconstitutionally interferes with the fundamental right of parents to rear their children. Troxel v. Granville (2005). Therefore, at this time, non-parents do not have the right to ask for court-ordered visitation over the objection of a fit parent.

However, if you are a non-biological parent that helped raise the child, the situation may be different. It is both unfair and harmful to a child when someone acts as a parent for the child for an extended period of time and then loses access to the child because the relationship with the biological parent failed. To prevent this harm, Washington State has created different avenues for non-biological parents to gain custody or visitation in this type of situation.

The law on this particular issue is still developing and can change very fast. As of right now, if a parent is not a biological or adoptive parent, he or she may still be able to gain parental rights and duties with the child in question if he or she can prove that they are the child’s “de facto parent.”

Under RCW 26.26A.440, for non-biological parents to qualify as a de facto parents, they must prove all of the following: (1) they have an actual “parent-like” relationship with the child; (2) the relationship was formed with a biological or adoptive parent’s consent or encouragement; (3) the non-biological parent lived with the child in the same household; (4) the non-biological parent took on responsibilities of parenting without any expectation of renumeration; (5) the person acted as a parent long enough to have developed a bonded, dependent, parent-like relationship with the child; and (6) the person fully and completely undertook a permanent, unequivocal, committed, and responsible parental role in the child’s life.

Although the concept of a de facto parent is pleasant to think about because of the unjustness it seeks to avoid, it can be very hard to prove. The reason for this is because the non-biological parent attempting to establish him or herself as a de facto parent must prove all of the factors set out in RCW 26.26A.440. This is an extreme hurdle to cross for non-biological parents.

Fortunately, if a non-biological parent does not meet the criteria of a de facto parent, they can still potentially gain custody or visitation of the child in question. To do this, a non-biological parent must prove that (1) the child is not in the biological parent’s physical custody; (2) the biological parent is unfit; or (3) that living with an otherwise fit parent would detrimentally affect the child’s growth and development, and that the non-biological parent is fit to be a parent. This last prong is often easier to prove if the child and the non-biological parent have a strong, loving and genuine relationship. This is especially true if the child is young because he or she is still developing emotionally and physically.

It is unfair for innocent children to be harmed when they are still maturing. Children often form strong “parent-like” relationships with their biological parent’s partner, and it is devastating when children lose access to these parent-like figures just because their parents’ relationship did not work out. Therefore, Washington has created the concept of “de facto” parent in order to overcome this type of unjustness. If the non-biological parent cannot prove that they are a de facto parent, they still have hope if they can prove one of the three factors listed above.

As society progresses, people are becoming more mobile and frequently move for many reasons. For example, people move for new job opportunities, school, or just to be closer to family. However, if a custodial parent has a parenting plan or court order in place and is attempting to relocate with their child, things can get complicated quickly. To prevent unfairness to the non-custodial parent, Washington State has specific laws that prohibit custodial parents from simply packing up and moving when their is a child custody order or parenting plan in place.

Generally, Washington law requires that a custodial parent give sixty days notice of the proposed relocation to anyone legally entitled to visitation or residential time with the child. Most frequently, this is the non-custodial parent. The notice must include detailed information such as the proposed new address and the reasons for the relocation.

Equally important, once the custodial parent provides a sixty day notice, the non-custodial parent must file an objection to the proposed relocation within thirty days if he or she disagrees with the relocation. However, if the proposed relocation is within the child’s current school district, the non-custodial parent has no right to object. During this thirty day objection period, the parent attempting to relocate cannot change the residence of the child without a court order or unless the court finds that special circumstances exist. If the non-custodial parent fails to object during these thirty days, Washington courts will usually allow the relocation.

If the non-custodial parent timely objects, they still face additional hurdles. The reason for this is because in 2003, a Washington Court concluded that there is a presumption that a custodial parent seeking to relocate with the child should be free to do so. In re Osborne.Therefore, to prevent the move, the non-custodial parent must rebut this presumption. In order to do this, the non-custodial parent must prove that the detrimental effect of the move outweighs any potential benefit to the child and the custodial parent attempting to relocate.

When Washington courts consider the objection, they weigh several factors. For example, under RCW 26.09.520, Washington courts are required to consider: (1) the relative strength, nature, quality, extent of involvement and stability of the child’s relationship with each parent, siblings, and other persons in the child’s life; (2) the parent’s prior agreements; (3) whether it would be worse to disrupt the child’s contact with the custodial parent or the non-custodial parent; (4) whether either parent has limited visitation because of prior violence, abandonment, or abuse; (5) why the parents are requesting or opposing relocation, and whether these requests are being made in good faith; (6) the child’s developmental needs and how the relocation will affect their physical, educational, or emotional development; (7) whether the move will allow for a better quality of life, resources, and opportunities for the child and the relocating parent; (8) whether arrangements can be made in order to continue the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent; (9) whether there are alternatives to relocating, or whether the non-custodial parent can feasibly and reasonably relocate as well; and (10) the financial impact and logistics of the move or its prevention. If the judge allows the relocation, both parents can propose a revised parenting plan that considers the relocation and the new distance between the non-custodial and custodial parents’ homes.

Because the objecting parent faces such an uphill battle, it is very beneficial for them to speak with an experienced child custody attorney. In my opinion, it is unfair to penalize non-custodial parents in this way. Non-custodial parents already spend less time with their children compared to custodial parents, and relocating can very likely disrupt the non-custodial parents access to the child even further. Therefore, until the Washington legislature reconsiders this presumption, it is important for an objecting parent to seek advice from an attorney, object in a timely manner, and demonstrate why the detrimental effect of the move outweighs any potential benefit to the child and the custodial parent.

According to a recent study, approximately 25,000 women in the United States become pregnant as a result each year. In addition, one out of three of those women choose to keep and raise their child. https://www.mollybkenny.com/library/child-custody—rape–understanding-washington-state-s-custody-laws.cfm. However, in most states, these women do not have many legal protections, and their perpetrators often have normal parenting rights to the child. Fortunately, a new law in Washington State became effective on January 1, 2019. Under this law, a rape survivor can terminate or restrict the rapist’s parental rights by presenting clear and convincing evidence that the pregnancy was a result of rape. RCW 26.26A.465.

Under RCW 26.26A.465, a rape survivor can ask the court to limit or terminate the perpetrators rights in a parentage case. To do this, the victim of the sexual assault must file a Petition to Stop Parentage Based on Sexual Assault. After one files this, a hearing is held regarding the allegation. During the hearing, a judge must determine: (1) whether the perpetrator did in fact rape the petitioner; and (2) whether the child was born because of the rape. If a judge decides that the rape survivor proved these two elements, then the perpetrator can only be given rights to the child if the rape survivor allows it.

Unless the rape survivor explicitly agrees in writing, the rapist will lose the following rights: (1) to visit the child; (2) to make any decisions concerning the child; (3) to inherit from the child; and (4) to get any notice of adoption of the child. RCW 26.26A.465.

Equally important, rape survivors who become pregnant as a result of rape often begin struggling financially because they have to care for the child. Another benefit of this new law is that a rape survivor can ask the judge to order the rapist to reimburse the victim for any costs related to the child’s birth. This reimbursement can also include premiums for a child’s health care.

In conclusion, rape is a very serious and ongoing problem in the United States. Therefore, over 30 states have adopted new laws that are similar to Washington State’s. Hopefully more states begin to adopt similar laws because it is unfair to place additional burdens on survivors of rape. Survivors of rape must be given additional legal protections to help ensure their recovery, and to protect their child’s best interests.

The elderly can be extremely vulnerable targets for financial and physical abuse. In fact, incidents of elder abuse have risen sharply across the state. For example, in 2017, DSHS had to conduct 10,713 investigations related to financial exploitation. This was nearly double the number of investigations conducted in 2012. http://www.islandssounder.com/news/adult-abuse-continues-to-spike-in-washington-state/. Therefore, it is very important that the elderly know their rights so they can prevent people from taking advantage of them.

Luckily, the Washington State legislature revised and enacted the Vulnerable Protection Act on July 7, 2007. Under this Act, a vulnerable adult, or interested person on behalf of the vulnerable adult, may seek relief from abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect, by filing a petition for a Vulnerable Adult Protection Order in the appropriate superior court. RCW 74.34.110.

Washington State’s Vulnerable Protection Act applies to people who: (1) are 60 or older who are functionally, mentally, or physically unable to care for themselves; (2) have a court appointed guardian; (3) have a developmental disability; (4) live in a nursing home; (5) get services from home health, hospice, or home care agencies; or (6) get services from an individual care provider or personal aide. RCW 74.34.020.

In order for a petitioner to succeed in obtaining a Vulnerable Adult Protection Order, they must show that the adult is being subjected to either abuse or neglect. Under RCW 74.43.020, “abuse” is defined as the willful or non-accidental action or inaction that harms a vulnerable adult. In addition, “neglect” is when a person or agency with a duty to care for a vulnerable adult acts (or fails to act) in a way that prevents the vulnerable adult from seeking the necessary care for their physical or mental health.

The main benefit of seeking a Vulnerable Adult Protection Order is that it protects the vulnerable adult in a variety of ways. Because of all the protections this Order provides, it is often unnecessary to obtain other types of protection orders such as no-contact orders. Therefore, a Vulnerable Adult Protection Order is an efficient and affordable way for a vulnerable adult to receive protection. More specifically, the protection order can: (1) keep the abuser from abusing the vulnerable adult; (2) prohibit the abuser from entering the adult’s home; (3) prevent the abuser from contacting the adult; (4) require the abuser to provide an accounting of the adult’s income, property, and other resources; (5) stop the abuser from transferring the adult’s property for up to 90 days; or (6) order the abuser to pay for the costs associated with bringing the action in the first place. RCW 74.34.130. After the petitioner files the petition, the vulnerable adult will receive a temporary protection order for fourteen days, until there is a hearing. At the hearing, the judge can issue the order for up to five years. RCW 74.34.130. Therefore, this type of protection order provides a quick and easy way of seeking immediate relief.

In conclusion, elder abuse is on the rise in Washington State, and it is very important for the elderly to protect themselves by knowing their rights. Often, the elderly are vulnerable because their perpetrators are close family members who have easy access to them and their finances. Therefore, in order to get immediate relief, the vulnerable adult or an interested party should obtain a Vulnerable Adult Protection Order as soon as it becomes apparent that someone is abusing or neglecting the vulnerable adult.

Victims of domestic violence often need to take time off from work to address domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. However, many victims of domestic violence fail to do so because they fear that they will lose their job, or be discriminated against in the workplace. To address this issue, the Washington State legislature enacted RCW 49.76 on April 1, 2008.

Under the Domestic Violence Leave Act, an employee may take reasonable leave from work, intermittent leave, or leave on a reduced leave schedule, with or without pay, to: (1) seek legal or law enforcement help; (2) seek treatment from a health care provider for physical or mental injuries; (3) help a family member get services from a domestic violence shelter, rape crisis center, mental health counseling or other social service program; and (4) participate in safety planning, temporarily or permanently move, or take other actions to increase the safety of the employee or employee’s family member. RCW 49.76.030.

Under the Domestic Violence Leave Act, employers cannot take any negative actions against employees for exercising these rights. Negative actions can include: (1) retaliation; (2) demotion; (3) discrimination; (4) termination; or (5) actions that negatively impact promotion, compensation, or other conditions of employment. RCW 49.76.115. If an employer fires you for exercising these rights, they must give you your job back. However, this rule does not apply to temporary staffing agencies that employ you for a temporary job.

Employers are allowed to seek verification from employees who request leave under this Act. Employees can provide verification by giving the employer a written statement stating that the employee or one of their family members is a victim of domestic violence. Additionally, employees can provide verification by submitting a police report, court order, or documentation from a healthcare provider. https://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/LeaveBenefits/FamilyCare/DomViolence/default.asp.

If an employer refuses to let an employee take leave or if the employer fires or demotes an employee for exercising their rights under this Act, the employee can file a civil action in court. For civil actions, an employee can ask the court to order the employer to give the employee their job back, or compensate the employee for lost wages and other damages. Equally important, an employee can file a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industries. If the Department of Labor and Industries concludes that the employer violated this law, they may issue an infraction, and also fine the employer $500 for the first offense. For subsequent offenses, L&I may fine the employer $1,000. In some cases, L&I may also require the employer to give the employee their job back. https://www.legalvoice.org/leave-from-work-for-survivors.

Every year, over one hundred thousand people are victims of gunshot wounds, and more than thirty thousand of those victims lose their lives. RCW 7.94.010. Often, these acts of violence are committed against family or household members. To combat this problem, Washington State voters approved Extreme Risk Protection Orders through ballot 1491 in November 2016. The law that pertains to this issue is RCW 7.94.

An Extreme Risk Protection Order is a new type of protection order. Specifically, it is a court order that temporarily restricts a person from having access to firearms if there is evidence that the person is threatening to harm themselves or others. RCW 7.94. The person being restricted is called the respondent. Under an Extreme Risk Protection Order, the respondent must surrender all firearms and concealed pistol licenses to police. Additionally, the respondent is prohibited from having a firearm in his or her custody or control, and may not purchase, possess, receive, or attempt to purchase a firearm. http://protectionorder.org/erpo/faq-extreme-risk-protection-orders.html.

Under RCW 7.94, a family or household member may file a petition asking the court to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order against someone else. RCW 7.94.020 defines a family or household member as a: (1) person related by blood, marriage, or adoption to the respondent; (2) dating partner of the respondent; (3) person who has a child in common with the respondent, regardless of whether such person has been married to the respondent or has lived together with the respondent at any time; (4) person who resides or has resided with the respondent within the past year; (5) domestic partner of the respondent; (6) person who has a biological or legal parent-child relationship with the respondent, including stepparents and stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren; or (7) a person who is acting or has acted as the respondent’s legal guardian.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders last one year, and may be renewed for additional one-year periods. However, you can only renew the order after 260 days have passed from the time the initial order was entered. It is important to remember that Extreme Risk Protection Orders only restrict access to firearms. They do not protect people in other ways, such as keeping a respondent away from the petitioner. If a petitioner wishes to restrict someone from being near them, it is a good idea to file for a Domestic Violence Protection Order or Restraining Order, depending on the person’s situation.

As stated earlier, for a court to grant a petitioner an Extreme Risk Protection Order, the petitioner must demonstrate that the respondent has a high risk of harming themselves or others. To do this, a petitioner can show that the respondent engages in certain behaviors such as threats of violence, self-harm, or the abuse of drugs or alcohol. RCW 7.94.010.

This new type of Protection Order demonstrates a huge progression in society. Its purpose and intent is to reduce gun deaths and injuries, while still respecting citizen’s constitutional rights. RCW 7.94.010.

Parents are people, and people make mistakes. Sometimes, major problems arise in a parent’s life that cause the parent to make poor decisions. Some of these decisions include drug abuse and neglect of the parent’s child. Although the parent might deeply care about their child, the parent might temporarily be “unfit” to care for their child. After recognizing the situation that the parent is in, a third-party might want to care for the child temporarily, in order to give the parent some time to get their life together. However, the third-party, might not want to seek a final court order because they want to maintain their relationship with the parent, and are afraid that a formal court action might strain this relationship. A good solution to this problem is a Temporary Parental Consent Agreement.

A Temporary Parental Consent Agreement may give you authority to (1) make medical decisions and educational decisions for the child; and (2) get care and services for them.

Temporary Parental Consent Agreements work best with parties who are in agreement. Both parties must honor the agreement because a Temporary Parental Consent Form is not a court order, and the parent may rescind it at any time. Equally important, these agreements work best if the third-party agrees to care for the child no longer than one year. If the third-party plans to care for the child longer than a year, then it is best to file a non-parental custody case. In addition, these agreements work best when third-party agencies are prepared to recognize them. For example, some schools, doctors, insurance companies, or government agencies may not honor a Temporary Parental Consent Agreement. Therefore, before seeking a Temporary Parental Consent Agreement, the third-party should contact these agencies to find out whether the agreement will be enforced. If third-parties are prepared to recognize the agreement, then a Temporary Parental Consent Agreement is a great alternative to seeking non-parental custody order. However, as stated earlier, these agreements are only effective if both parties understand and honor the agreement. Therefore, before seeking a Temporary Parental Consent Agreement, the third-party should evaluate whether the parent is likely to honor it. If the parent is prepared to honor the agreement, then a Temporary Parental Consent Agreement can come with many benefits such as preserving family relationships.