## Facts

- Nichole K. Stewart and Wilson G. Stewart were divorced parents of two children, R.S. (13) and S.S. (8).
- The marriage was dissolved in 2001. A permanent parenting plan named Nichole as the primary residential parent and gave Wilson residential time/visitation.
- Over the years after dissolution, the children witnessed Wilson commit repeated acts of domestic violence against Nichole, and the conduct escalated.
- Wilson was twice charged with fourth-degree assault. In connection with earlier events, he pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault and was ordered to complete domestic-violence treatment.
- Nichole obtained a no-contact order and a permanent restraining order that barred harassment and stalking, prohibited Wilson from entering her home or workplace, and required curbside exchanges of the children.
- Shortly after entry of one of the orders, Wilson violated it by following Nichole’s car late at night and leaving messages on her cell phone tracking her movements; police listened to the voicemails and arrested him.
- In July 2003, the parties amended the parenting plan to require co-parent counseling and changed exchanges to a Starbucks location, but conflict and abusive conduct continued.
- In March 2004, around the time Wilson completed domestic-violence treatment, Nichole alleged that during a visitation exchange Wilson shoved his hand down her pants and then forced his finger into her mouth in S.S.’s presence.
- In September 2004, Nichole alleged Wilson barged into her home, accused her of seeing other men, and—while the children were present—ripped the comforter off her bed to check the sheets for “evidence of sex.”
- Nichole petitioned under Washington’s Domestic Violence Protection Act (chapter 26.50 RCW) for a domestic-violence protection order (DVPO) for herself and the children.
- A superior court commissioner entered a one-year DVPO that prohibited Wilson from contacting Nichole or the children and stated that it superseded the existing parenting plan while in effect.
- Wilson sought revision of the commissioner’s ruling; the superior court denied revision, crediting Nichole’s account over Wilson’s.
- Wilson appealed the DVPO and the denial of his motion to revise.

## Issues

1. Whether chapter 26.50 RCW authorizes a DVPO that temporarily prohibits a parent’s contact with minor children and supersedes an existing parenting plan.
2. Whether such a temporary no-contact provision constitutes an impermissible “modification” of a parenting plan requiring compliance with parenting-plan modification standards.
3. Whether suspending a parent’s contact with his children for the DVPO term violates the parent’s constitutional rights to care, custody, and companionship.
4. Whether the evidence supported the DVPO and whether the superior court abused its discretion in leaving the order in place.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the DVPO.
- The court held that chapter 26.50 RCW authorizes a DVPO that temporarily prohibits contact between a parent and minor children when needed for protection, even when a parenting plan exists.
- The court held the DVPO was not an impermissible parenting plan modification because it operated as a temporary protective order and did not permanently rewrite the parenting plan.
- The court rejected Wilson’s constitutional challenge, concluding that a time-limited no-contact restriction supported by evidence of domestic violence and entered through statutory procedures does not violate parental due process rights.
- The court held the order was supported by the record of repeated domestic violence and related behavior, much of it occurring in the children’s presence, and that the superior court did not abuse its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A court may issue a DVPO under chapter 26.50 RCW that temporarily prohibits contact between a parent and the parent’s minor children when the restriction is necessary to protect the victim and the children.
- A DVPO that temporarily supersedes an existing parenting plan is not treated as a permanent parenting plan modification governed by the standards applicable to long-term modification proceedings.
- Parental rights are fundamental, but they are not absolute; the State may impose time-limited contact restrictions through DVPO proceedings when supported by evidence and justified by child safety and protection from domestic violence.
- On appeal, statutory interpretation questions are reviewed de novo, while the decision to grant or maintain a protection order is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to trial-level credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

In re Marriage of Stewart holds that Washington’s DVPA permits a court to enter a time-limited domestic-violence protection order that bars a parent’s contact with minor children and supersedes an existing parenting plan, so long as the order is supported by evidence of domestic violence and entered as a temporary safety measure; such an order is not an impermissible parenting plan modification and does not violate constitutional parental rights.


In re Marriage of Stewart, 137 P.3d 25 (2006)