## Facts

- Tiffany D. Blackmon petitioned for a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) against her estranged husband, Brian J. Blackmon, under Washington’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (ch. 26.50 RCW), alleging incidents causing fear for her and the couple’s seven-year-old son.
- The superior court entered a temporary protection order and set a hearing; multiple continuances extended the temporary order.
- On the eve of the scheduled hearing, Brian first indicated he might request a jury trial; on the hearing date, he filed a jury demand with a brief, and the court denied the request and a motion to continue.
- The court conducted a fact-finding hearing where both parties gave testimony, were cross-examined, and presented witnesses and evidence.
- After the parties rested, the court recessed for final argument and, on the later date, entered a one-year DVPO restraining Brian from contact with Tiffany and their child.
- Brian appealed; the DVPO expired while the appeal was pending.

## Issues

1. Whether the appeal became moot after expiration of the one-year DVPO, and whether an exception applied allowing review of a recurring issue of broad public importance.
2. Whether the Washington Constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial in DVPO proceedings under ch. 26.50 RCW.
3. Whether the superior court violated due process in managing the hearing, including denying a request to present additional evidence after Brian had rested.

## Decision

- The court held the appeal was moot as to case-specific relief because the DVPO had expired, but it addressed the jury-trial issue under the broad-public-importance exception.
- The court affirmed, holding there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in DVPO hearings because the remedy is injunctive and equitable.
- The court rejected the argument that DVPO proceedings are criminal equivalents requiring a jury trial.
- The court affirmed the superior court’s order and did not find a due process violation based on the record of a full evidentiary hearing with opportunities to present and challenge evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A case is moot when a court can no longer provide effective relief; appellate review may still be exercised for issues of continuing and broad public importance likely to recur.
- The constitutional right to a jury trial attaches to actions that were legal in nature at common law, not to equitable proceedings.
- DVPO proceedings under ch. 26.50 RCW are civil, preventive, and injunctive; because the remedy is equitable, no jury-trial right applies.
- Trial courts have discretion to control the orderly presentation of evidence; due process generally requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard, not unlimited reopening of proof after resting.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed a one-year domestic violence protection order and held that, although the expired order mooted case-specific relief, Washington’s constitutional jury-trial guarantee does not apply to DVPO hearings because they seek equitable, injunctive relief rather than legal or criminal adjudication.


Blackmon v. Blackmon, 230 P.3d 233 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)