IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

CRYSTAL UGOLINI,

Respondent,

v.

FRANK UGOLINI,

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 36156-0-III

PUBLISHED OPINION

LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — The trial court issued a one-year order of protection 

prohibiting Frank Ugolini from having any contact with his former wife, Crystal Ugolini, 

and their three minor children. The factual basis for the order was Mr. Ugolini’s 

admission that he slapped his 11-year-old son on the cheek as discipline for talking back. 

But RCW 9A.16.100 allows reasonable and moderate physical discipline by a 

parent, teacher, or guardian to restrain or correct a child. Because the trial court failed to 

enter findings whether the discipline exceeded that allowed under RCW 9A.16.100, we 

reverse and remand.

FILED

DECEMBER 17, 2019

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 36156-0-III

Ugolini v. Ugolini

2

FACTS

On May 7, 2018, Frank Ugolini’s former wife, Crystal Ugolini, filed a petition for 

an order of protection under chapter 26.50 RCW, the Domestic Violence Protection Act. 

In her petition, she described prior incidents where Mr. Ugolini assaulted her and their 

11-year-old son, B.U. She requested an order of protection be issued to protect herself 

and their three minor children. A pro tem judge reviewed the petition and issued a

temporary protection order that restrained Mr. Ugolini from having any contact with Ms.

Ugolini and their three minor children. The petition and order were promptly served on 

Mr. Ugolini.

Mr. Ugolini filed and served opposing declarations. Mr. Ugolini’s declaration 

disputed most of his former wife’s accusations. But his and his current wife’s 

declarations said he recently slapped B.U. on the cheek after repeatedly telling him not to 

talk back. A police report, made part of the record, shows two officers responded to the 

incident and they did not see any red marks on B.U.’s face.

A hearing on the order for protection was held on May 31, 2018. The trial court 

began the hearing by asking Ms. Ugolini whether she still wanted a protection order, to 

which she responded she did. The trial court then asked Mr. Ugolini to respond. 
No. 36156-0-III

Ugolini v. Ugolini

3

Through counsel, Mr. Ugolini explained that he does discipline his children. This 

admission prompted the trial court to rule:

[T]he request before the Court is for an order for protection. . . . The 

standard for order for protection is whether or not an individual has caused 

physical harm, bodily injury, assault, including sexual assault or the threat 

thereof. . . . Frank told [B.U.] to be quiet or he would get smacked. Crystal 

instantly replied that is not how we discipline. Physical punishment is not 

okay. The children are too old. . . . Frank stepped forward and smacked 

[B.U.] on the cheek. . . . That’s domestic violence right, there. . . . What I 

have is to look at whether or not the petitioner has given a basis for an order 

for protection to have been granted. And, with the respondent’s own 

witnesses, there’s a basis for me to enter this order.

So I will be doing so. . . . [A]t this point I’m issuing the [one year] 

order for protection in its entirety pending any modifications with family 

law court.

Report of Proceedings at 13-14.

ANALYSIS

Mr. Ugolini contends the trial court erred when it entered the protection order 

because he used lawful force when disciplining B.U. We agree the trial court erred, but 

do not determine whether Mr. Ugolini’s actions were lawful. 

A trial court’s grant of a protection order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re 

Vulnerable Adult Petition for Knight, 178 Wn. App. 929, 936, 317 P.3d 1068 (2014). 

Abuse of discretion is found only when the decision is “‘manifestly unreasonable, or 

exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.’” State v. McCormick, 166 
No. 36156-0-III

Ugolini v. Ugolini

4

Wn.2d 689, 706, 213 P.3d 32 (2009) (quoting State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 

12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971)). Untenable reasons include errors of law. Cook v. Tarbert 

Logging, Inc., 190 Wn. App. 448, 461, 360 P.3d 855 (2015).

A petition for a protection order can be commenced by 

[a]ny person . . . filing a petition with a court alleging that the person has 

been the victim of domestic violence committed by the respondent. The 

person may petition for relief on behalf of himself or herself and on behalf 

of minor family or household members.

RCW 26.50.020(1)(a). “Domestic violence” includes “[p]hysical harm, bodily injury, 

assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, 

between family or household members.” Former RCW 26.50.010(3)(a) (2015). 

“Family or household members” include former spouses and biological children. 

RCW 26.50.010(6). 

In her petition, Ms. Ugolini claimed Mr. Ugolini assaulted her and their 11-yearold son, B.U. There are three forms of assault: (1) assault by actual battery, (2) assault by 

attempt to cause injury, and (3) assault by attempt to cause fear or apprehension of injury.

State v. Hall, 104 Wn. App. 56, 62, 14 P.3d 884 (2000). The form of assault at issue here 

is assault by actual battery. This form of assault occurs when there is any “intentional 

touching or striking of another person that is harmful or offensive.” State v. Tyler, 138 
No. 36156-0-III

Ugolini v. Ugolini

5

Wn. App. 120, 130, 155 P.3d 1002 (2007). But the legislature has deemed certain 

intentional touching or striking permissible.

The legislature created a safe harbor that allows a parent, teacher, or guardian to 

use reasonable and moderate force to restrain or correct a child. RCW 9A.16.100

provides, in relevant part:

It is the policy of this state to protect children from assault and abuse and to 

encourage parents, teachers, and their authorized agents to use methods of 

correction and restraint of children that are not dangerous to the children. 

However, the physical discipline of a child is not unlawful when it is 

reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent, teacher, or guardian 

for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.

The statute sets forth a nonexclusive list of physical disciplinary actions that are 

presumed unreasonable: 

(1) Throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child; (2) striking a child with a 

closed fist; (3) shaking a child under age three; (4) interfering with a child’s 

breathing; (5) threatening a child with a deadly weapon; or (6) doing any 

other act that is likely to cause and which does cause bodily harm greater 

than transient pain or minor temporary marks. The age, size, and condition 

of the child and the location of the injury shall be considered when 

determining whether the bodily harm is reasonable or moderate.

RCW 9A.16.100. 

Courts must consider all of the circumstances of the physical discipline, and 

determine whether it was objectively excessive, immoderate, or unreasonable. In re 

Dependency of H.S., 188 Wn. App. 654, 664, 356 P.3d 202 (2015); State v. Singleton, 
No. 36156-0-III

Ugolini v. Ugolini

6

41 Wn. App. 721, 723, 705 P.2d 825 (1985); see also former WAC 388-15-009(2) (2002) 

(other factors may include the developmental level of the child and the nature of the 

misconduct).

While this court has not analyzed RCW 9A.16.100 in the context of “domestic 

violence,” it has analyzed the statute in the context of “abuse and neglect.” H.S., 188 Wn. 

App. 654. There, a 16-year-old girl was removed from her father’s care when she 

reported that her father and stepmother had slapped and spanked her. Teachers and social 

service officials were unable to find any marks to corroborate her reports. Nevertheless, a 

dependency action was commenced, and a contested hearing was held. During the 

hearing, the father and stepmother admitted to slapping the daughter to discipline her for 

talking back and behaving violently. The trial court found the girl dependent, and the 

father appealed. We held that the use of an open hand to slap a child on the face is 

“permissible so long as it does not ‘cause bodily harm greater than transient pain or minor 

temporary marks.’” Id. at 665 (quoting RCW 9A.16.100).1 

This case is similar to H.S. While H.S. dealt with the definition of abuse and this 

case deals with the definition of domestic violence, the circumstances surrounding both 

 

1 The holding should be taken in context. The result would have been different 

had the child been small. As implied by RCW 9A.16.100, the smaller the child, the more 

likely a slap on the face will be deemed unreasonable or immoderate.
No. 36156-0-111 

Ugolini v. Ugolini 

remain consistent. Both cases involve a parent slapping his child on the face as 

discipline; and in both instances, independent witnesses did not see any marks on the 

child's face after the slap. B.U. was likely smaller and more vulnerable than the 16-yearold girl in HS. Whether Mr. Ugolini acted within or outside of the safe harbor created by 

RCW 9A.16.100 is a question of fact, a question we do not answer. 

The trial court abused its discretion by not analyzing the appropriate factors and 

concluding that any physical discipline by a parent constitutes domestic violence. By its 

terms, the order of protection has expired. Nevertheless, we remand for the trial court to 

vacate the wrongfully issued order and any other order in this case issued based upon it. 

We grant this relief because such orders, if wrongfully issued, often have collateral 

consequences that extend beyond the orders' duration. 

Reversed and remanded. 

l4.,,.f'V,.(.',.-~W\_"'7 I C..~, 

Lawrence-Berrey, C.J. 

WE CONCUR: 

K~I Pennell, J. 

7