## Facts

- Esmeralda Rodriguez and Luis Daniel Zavala had a minor son, L.Z.; Rodriguez also had three daughters from a prior relationship.
- Zavala repeatedly physically and emotionally abused Rodriguez and threatened Rodriguez and her children, including threats to kidnap L.Z. and to kill Rodriguez, her daughters, and their son.
- In June 2015, after separation and while a restraining order was in place, Zavala came to Rodriguez’s home, forced entry, cornered her, and choked her while making threatening statements.
- Rodriguez, believing Zavala would carry out prior threats against her and the children, stabbed Zavala with a kitchen knife while her daughter called for help; police arrested Zavala.
- Rodriguez sought a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) for herself and all four children, including L.Z.
- The trial court entered a final DVPO for Rodriguez and her three daughters but excluded L.Z. because he was asleep during the assault and not directly threatened in that incident.

## Issues

1. Whether repeated threats against a minor child constitute “domestic violence” under RCW 26.50.010(3), including “the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault.”
2. Whether a parent may obtain a DVPO on behalf of a minor child based on the parent’s reasonable fear that the respondent will harm the child, even if the child did not witness or experience the most recent assault.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the trial court to the extent they excluded L.Z. from the DVPO.
- The court held that Zavala’s repeated threats against L.Z. fit the statutory definition of “domestic violence.”
- The court held that Rodriguez could petition for and obtain DVPO protection for L.Z. based on her reasonable fear for his safety.
- The case was remanded for entry of an order including protection for L.Z.

## Legal Principles

- Under the DVPA, “domestic violence” includes not only physical assault but also the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault among family or household members.
- The statute does not require that the threatened person be physically present, awake, or a witness to the precipitating assault to be protected from threatened harm.
- Repeated threats directed at a child can establish “domestic violence” when they create a reasonable fear of imminent harm to the child.
- A parent may seek DVPO relief on behalf of a minor child who is a victim of domestic violence within the meaning of the DVPA, consistent with the statute’s protective purpose.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court held that a DVPO may include a minor child when the respondent’s threats create a reasonable fear of imminent harm to that child, even if the child did not witness or experience the most recent assault, and that a parent may petition on the child’s behalf for that protection.


Rodriguez v. Zavala, 398 P.3d 1071 (Wash. 2017)