## Facts

- During dissolution proceedings, a superior-court commissioner entered a temporary domestic-violence protection order on January 23, 1998.
- After a February 4, 1998 hearing with testimony from both parties, the commissioner entered a permanent protection order.
- The order rested on two incidents: (1) an altercation in which the husband physically pushed the wife’s 16-year-old daughter down a hallway into her bedroom, and (2) an argument during which the husband opened a gun safe and handled a firearm, which the wife perceived as threatening.
- Shortly after entry of the permanent order, the husband left Washington due to military reassignment and did not return.
- Over the next approximately eight years, there was no evidence of contact with the wife or daughter, no violations of the order, and no new domestic-violence incidents.
- In 2006, the husband moved to modify or terminate the permanent order, citing changed circumstances including a combat-related amputation and collateral employment consequences tied to the order (including security-clearance impacts).
- The wife testified she continued to fear the husband; the commissioner credited her testimony and denied termination or modification.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Washington Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may continue a permanent domestic-violence protection order indefinitely based solely on the original incidents and the petitioner’s continuing subjective fear, without evidence of a current realistic threat after years of compliance and no contact.
2. What standard governs a respondent’s motion to terminate a permanent domestic-violence protection order under Washington’s domestic-violence statutes.
3. Whether the commissioner abused discretion by denying termination on this record.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
- The court held the commissioner abused discretion by denying the motion to terminate.
- The court concluded that, given the undisputed eight-year period of strict compliance, lack of contact, and changed circumstances, the order could not be continued indefinitely without evidence of an ongoing realistic threat of future harm.
- The case was remanded with directions consistent with termination of the protection order on this record.

## Legal Principles

- Domestic-violence protection orders are remedial devices to prevent future harm, not punitive lifetime restraints untethered to current risk.
- A permanent protection order remains subject to later review; “permanent” does not make the order irrevocable.
- On a motion to terminate after substantial compliance, the court must assess current circumstances and whether there is a realistic threat of future harm, rather than relying solely on past incidents.
- The protected party’s subjective fear is relevant but, standing alone, is insufficient to justify indefinite continuation when objective evidence indicates no present danger.
- A court abuses discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard, disregards undisputed evidence of changed circumstances and long-term compliance, or treats permanency as conclusive.

## Conclusion

The court required termination because the record showed years of compliance and no contact or new threats, making indefinite continuation of a permanent domestic-violence protection order improper absent evidence of a current realistic threat of future harm.


Freeman v. Freeman, 239 P.3d 557 (Wash. 2010)