IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

JULIET TERESE POTRYKUS, No. 58301-1-II

Respondent,

v.

HENRY GEORGE POTRYKUS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant.

LEE, J. — Henry Potrykus appeals the domestic violence protection order (DVPO) 

protecting his wife, Juliet Potrykus, and their five minor children.1 Henry argues the superior court 

denied him due process by failing to identify or limit the allegations that would support the DVPO. 

Henry also argues that the DVPO is not supported by substantial evidence of domestic violence. 

Finally, Henry argues the DVPO unfairly discriminates against him and violates the Washington 

Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW, and the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101. However, because this appeal is now moot, we dismiss it. 

FACTS

On September 7, 2022, Juliet filed a petition for a DVPO seeking protection for herself and 

her children. Juliet’s petition outlined her concerns regarding Henry’s mental illness and her fear 

that he would take the children. Juliet’s petition also described some recent incidents in which 

 

1

 Because Henry and Juliet have the same last name, we refer to them by their first names for 

clarity. We intend no disrespect. 

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

December 5, 2023
No. 58301-1-II

2

Henry engaged in conflict with her parents and one incident at a park in which Juliet alleged Henry 

threw one of the children on the ground. 

At the hearing on the DVPO petition, the parties discussed whether to dismiss the petition 

because a restraining order had already been entered in the parties’ family law court case. 

However, the court ultimately proceeded with the DVPO proceeding. On September 20, 2022, the 

superior court entered a one-year DVPO. 

Henry appeals. 

ANALYSIS

Henry raises various arguments challenging the DVPO. However, because this appeal is 

now moot, we dismiss it. 

We will dismiss a case that is moot. RAP 18.9(c). A case is moot if a court can no longer 

provide effective relief. Maldonado v. Maldonado, 197 Wn. App. 779, 790, 391 P.3d 546 (2017). 

Although, we generally do not review a case that is moot, we can make an exception to review 

issues of substantial and continuing interest. Blackmon v. Blackmon, 155 Wn. App. 715, 720, 230 

P.3d 233 (2010). In deciding that an issue is of substantial and continuing interest we consider 

whether (1) the issue is of a public or private nature, (2) an authoritative determination is desirable 

to provide guidance to public officers, and (3) the issue is likely to recur. Id. 

Here, the DVPO Henry appeals expired on October 20, 2023. Therefore, the order being 

appealed is no longer restraining Henry and we cannot provide effective relief by reversing the 

order.2 Also, there are no issues of substantial and continuing interest.

 

2

 We note that some cases have recognized that the court can provide relief from an expired order 

by cleansing the appellant’s record and reputation of the stigma of the order. See Hough v. 

Stockbridge, 113 Wn. App. 532, 537, 54 P.3d 192 (2002), reversed in part on other grounds, 150 

Wn.2d 234 (2003). However, that reasoning does not apply here because at least one other 
No. 58301-1-II

3

The issues Henry raises in this appeal are not issues of substantial and continuing interest. 

First, this DVPO action is a private matter between Henry and Juliet, it is not an action of a public 

nature. Second, Henry’s issues regarding notice and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting 

the DVPO are specific to this case and, therefore, will not provide an authoritative determination 

that will provide future guidance to the court. And the issue regarding the WLAD and ADA may 

require an authoritative determination if Henry had been denied access to the courts due to his 

disability or had raised an issue under the ADA to the superior court. However, Henry was not 

denied access to the courts and no ADA issue was presented to the superior court during the 

hearing; therefore, there is no issue for this court to offer guidance on. Third, due to the casespecific nature of the issues Henry raises, it is unlikely that these issues will recur. Accordingly, 

the issues Henry raises in this appeal are not issues of substantial and continuing interest.

Because we can no longer provide Henry with effective relief from the expired DVPO, this 

appeal is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. 

 

restraining order was entered against Henry. Therefore, reversing this DVPO would not cleanse 

his record or remove any stigma of having a prior order entered against him.
No. 58301-1-II

4

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, 

it is so ordered.

Lee, J.

We concur:

Maxa, P.J.

Veljacic, J.