### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II GEORGINA EDME SANDOVAL SANCHEZ, No. 54535

- 7

- II

Appellant,
v. WILLIAM JOSEPH BLACKWELL, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Respondent.
S UTTON , J
. — G e orgina Edme Sandoval

- Sanchez appeals from a domestic violence protection order prohibiting William Joseph Blackwell from contacting Sandoval

- Sanchez and her daughter AG , but allowing contact with Sandoval

- Sanchez and Blackwell’s biological daughter AB. Sandoval

- Sanchez argues that the trial court erred by not including AB as one of the protected parties and by not entering adequate written findings explaining AB’s exclusion as required by RCW 26.50.060(7)
. 1 Because there is nothing in the record demonstrating that the trial court consider ed the evidence of AB’s exposure to domestic violence against a parent and Sandoval

- Sanchez’s fear that Blackwell would harm the child as required under Rodriguez v. Zavala , 188 Wn.2d 586, 594

- 95 , 598, 398 P.3d 1071 (2017), and the trial court did not enter written findings of fact explaining why it declined to designate AB as a protected party , we remand this matter for reconsideration and, if necessary, the entry of adequate written findings.

1 Blackwell has not filed a response. Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two August 3, 2021No. 54535

- 7

- II

2 FACTS I. P ETITION AND T EMPORARY P ROTECTION O RDER On December 24, 2019, Sandoval

- Sanchez petitioned for a domestic violence protection order prohibiting Blackwell from contacting her and her two daughters , AG and AB
. 2 AB is Blackwell’s biological daughter. In her petition, which Sandoval

- Sanchez signed under penalty of perjury, Sandoval

- Sanchez assert ed that she feared for her life and “the lives of [both] children.” Clerk’s Papers ( CP ) at 4
. Sandoval

- Sanchez requested an emergency temporary protection order effective immediately
. The trial court i ssu ed a temporary protection o rder that same day. The temporary order restrained Blackwell from contacting Sandoval

- Sanchez and both children
. II. H EARING AND P ROTECTION O RDER Thirteen days later, the trial court heard evidence on Sandoval

- Sanchez ’s petiti on . Both parties appeared without counsel. Sandoval

- Sanchez testified that through out their relationship Blackwell had physically
a ssaulted he r , threatened to kill he r , and attempted to control and isolate her by limiting her acce ss to her car and phone and refusing to allow her to freely come and go from the home. She stated that he had “hurt [her] physically while [she] was pregnant and after [she] delivered” AB; and he would strike her (Sandoval

- Sanchez) in fron t of the children. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (V RP ) at 4
.

2 At the time of the petition, AG was four years old an d AB was one year old.No. 54535

- 7

- II

3

Sandoval

- Sanchez further testified that she had gone to work with black eyes, “busted lips,” and a chipped tooth , and she lied about the cause of these injuries when her coworkers a sked her about them. V RP at 4
. She stated that she eventually jumped out of a window with the children to escape the abusive situation
. Sandoval

- Sanchez ’s co

- worker Wendy Gonzalez confirmed that Sandoval

- Sanchez had

“ come to work with bruises all over her; [a] black eye; [and a] fa t lip.” V RP at 6. Gonzalez stated that Sandoval

- Sanchez had told her that Blackwell “would pretty much control everything that she did,” only allowed her to go to work, would take her keys, and she was not even allowed to “take her kids to appointments.” V RP at 6. Gonzales further testified that she had “seen the bruises” and that she had “seen how it has affected [ Sandoval

- Sanchez ] and the kids, ” but Gonzales did not describe how the children were affected. V RP at 7. Gonzales also testified that Blac kwell would call Sandoval

- Sanchez at work and that he had threatened to kill Sandoval

- Sanchez during one of those calls. Blackwell testified that “nin ety percent of what [ Sandoval

- Sanchez was] sa ying [was] untrue.” V RP at 9. He a sserted that Sandoval

- Sanchez was the one who was physically violent and controlling, she had a history of mental health i ssues , and she had a history of threating self

harm and threatening to leave the state with t he children. Blackwell a sserted that he was not a thr eat to Sandoval

- Sanchez or to the children and stated that he “just want[ed] to be in [his] daughter’s life.” V RP at 14

- 15 . After t he trial court advised the parties that this matter was not a custody case and that the custody matters needed to be addre s sed separately, Blackwell disclosed that Sandoval

- Sanchez had “file[d] a parenting plan” and he was filing a response
. V RP at 1 4
. Blackwell a sserted that Sandoval

- Sanchez had told himNo. 54535

- 7

- II

4

that she was seeking the protection order “out of pure spite ” and that she wanted “help from the State and she will get [him] for domestic viole nce if she has to.” V RP at 17. Blackwell and Sandoval

- Sanchez ’s former landlord Brittney Schallock testifie d for Blackwell. Schallock testified that , during their tenancy, she received frequent complaints from neighbor s about Sandoval

- Sanchez yelling at Blackwell and “throwing stuff around the property,” and Sandoval

- Sanchez “put[ ] holes in the walls” and broke a door. V RP at 12. S c hallock stated that Sandoval

- Sanchez “had ap ologized for her behavior and the destructivene ss .” V RP at 12. But S c hallock had to ask them to leave due to Sandoval

- Sanchez ’s “being violent.” V RP at 12. In rebuttal, Sandoval

- Sanchez a sserted that Blackwell had kicked in the door when she had locked it to keep him away from her and the children and Blackwell had caused the holes in the wall when he threw a pl ate of food at her. In contrast, Blackwell a sserted that Sandoval

- Sanchez had broken the door by s lamming it repeatedly. After hearing this te stimony, the trial court requested a copy of the proposed parenting plan that Sandoval

- Sanchez had filed, and Sandoval

- Sanchez provided one
. 3 Blackwell told the court that he only wanted to be able to see his daughter, especially fo r her upcoming birthday
. The trial court stated that this was “a difficult case, because it’s black and white on both sides” and both parties had presented witne sses . V RP at 19. The court noted that it was not unusual to have a pending parenting plan at the same time that something like this comes up because a history of domestic violence would impact the parenting plan.

3 The proposed parenting plan is not part of the appellate record.No. 54535

- 7

- II

5

The trial court then stated: My concern is, t hat if I deny the Petition and I leave the parties exactly where they are, as far as [Blackwell is] concerned one of [his] requests now is that, you know, if the Court grants this Order it’s for her and not the child. I haven’t heard anything that the chi ld is at risk one way or the other, so if I were to grant an Order it would be for her and not the child
. But since there isn’t a parenting plan in effect, visitation with this child still would be as the parties could agree, so
. . . I don’t solve that p roblem. So, one way I don’t solve that problem is simply to deny the thing and you are out there on your own. The second [w]ay I solve it is make the Protection Order just the two of you and not the child, but then the visitation is still up in the air. I can certainly order a visit for a birthday

--

. . . .

-- but that doesn’t solve that problem on the long run

-- the long run itself, by doing what you are doing, which is having this parenting plan entered. I can’t give you legal advice, but when you f ile your Response [to Sandoval

- Sanchez ’s proposed parenting plan] that’s not going to set the matter for a temporary hearing. Somebody
. . . needs to bring a motion for a temporary hearing and a notic e of a temporary hearing. That’ s how that’s done.

. . . . So, what I am going to do is I’m going to grant the Order. I’m going to make it against [ Sandoval

- Sanchez and Blackwell]
. I’ m not going to include the child. I’m going to set forth a visitation for [Blackwell] and the child . There’s two childr en, one is not [Blackwell’s] , [AG] would not be covered by any visitation one way or another.

. . . . [Blackwell is] going to have

-- the State of Washington is taking jurisdiction over [AB] , or it did when filing of the parenting plan, so that’ s already happened, but

-- [Blackwell is] going to be given visitations on

-- with [AB] on 1/8/2020 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Further visitation is set forth in a parenting plan case already filed . The child s hall not be removed from Longview during that visit and must be returned immediately after it’s over. V RP at 20

- 21, 25 (emphasis added)
. The trial court then i ssued a domestic violence protection order prohibiting Blackwell from contacting Sandoval

- Sanchez and A G ; it did not include AB as a pr otected party
. T he trial courtNo. 54535

- 7

- II

6

also specifically allowed Blackwell visitation with AB on January 8, and “further visitation as set forth in the parenting plan case already filed.” V CP at 20. The protection order did not contain any written findings rega rding the court’s decision not to include AB as one of the protected parties. Sandoval

- Sanchez appeals. ANALYSIS Sandoval

- Sanchez argues that the trial court erred (1) by not including AB as a protected party when t here was evidence that AB had been exposed to the domestic violence against her mother and Sandoval

- Sanchez feared that Blackwell would harm AB, and (2) by failing to enter written finding s of fact explaining th e decision to not include AB as a protected party
. Because the record does not demonstrate that the trial court considered AB’s exposure to domestic violence or Sandoval

- Sanchez’s fear that Blackwell would harm AB as required under Rodriguez , we remand for reconsideration and, i f necessary, the entry of appropriate findings of fact
. I. L EGAL P RINCIPLES In Rodriguez , our Supreme Court held that a parent’s fear for the safety of their child is a legitimate basis upon which to grant a domestic violence protection order. 188 Wn.2d at 594

- 95. The court also held that a child’s exposure to domestic violence against a parent “constitutes domestic violence under chapter 26.50 RCW.” Rodriguez , 188 Wn.2d at 593, 598. Additionally, w hen a trial court declines to i ssue a protection order it is required to “state in writing on the order the p articular reasons for the court’s denial.” RCW 26.50.060(7). If the trial court fails to enter such findings, this omi ssion may be harmle ss if the court’s oral r ul ing is sufficient to allow for our review. See State v. Miller , 92 Wn. App. 693, 703, 964 P.2d 1196 (1998)No. 54535

- 7

- II

7

(failure to enter written findings and conclusions of law as required by CrR3.5(c) is harmle ss if oral findings are sufficient for appellate review). II. R ISK OF H ARM Sandoval

- Sanchez argues that the trial co urt erred by not in cluding AB as protected party when there was evidence that AB had been exposed to domestic violence and that she (Sandoval

Sanchez) feared that Blackwell would harm AB , and by failing to enter written findings of fact explaining its deci sion to exclude AB as a protected party
. Sandoval

- Sanchez correct ly asserts that a child’s exposure to domestic violence against a parent can be harmful to the child and “such exposure constitutes domestic violence under chapter 26.50 RCW.” Rodriguez , 18 8 Wn.2d at 598 ; she is also correct that a parent’s fear that the other parent will harm a child can also be grounds for issuing a domestic violence protection order even if the child is unware of the potential harm. Rodriguez , 188 Wn.2d at 594

- 95. And t he record shows that Sandoval

- Sanchez presented evidence regarding both AB’s exposure to domestic violence and Sandoval

- Sanchez’s fear that Blackwell would harm AB. Despite this evidence, t he trial court stated in its oral ruling that it had not “ heard anything that the child is at risk one way or the other. ” V RP at 20. The trial court’s oral statement that it had not heard anything suggesting that AB was at risk suggests that the trial court did no t consider evidence that was relevant under Rodriguez. And b ecause there w ere no written findings or oral findings as to credibility, the record does not disclose whether the trial court considered the evidence but found it not to be credible. Additionally, t he trial court did not enter the writte n findings of fact explaining why it declined to include AB as one of the protected parties as required under RCW 26.50.060(7 ).No. 54535

- 7

- II

8

Because record does not show that the trial court considered the factors found relevant in Rodriguez and the trial court did no t enter written findings of fact required under RCW 26.50.060(7 ), we remand for reconsideration and, if necessary, entry of written findings
. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Repor ts, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

S UTTON , J. We concur:

G LASGOW , A.C.J.

V ELJACIC , J.