But... MOOOMMMMM
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- Washington
Looking for guidance in wording a response. (am willing to upload redacted version of lawyers response.
The response received shows the following 3 cases.
Since a threat is usually, just words, how can one show "inflicted fear of... Harm"
I'm looking for a way to rebut this, showing that fear from verbal threats (threatened to kill if ever divorced) IS enough to feel threatened when the respondant is a current drug user (Cocaine, admitted in his statement to the court) and owns more guns than most SWAT police officers carry in their vehicle.
Getting a lawyer isn't an option, as even low income clinics aren't available given the 10 days time until the court date.
DV advocates at court are... Less than helpful.
Thank you
----
Petitioner has not shown that Respondent has inflicted the fear of imminent physical
harm, bodily injury or assault. RCW 26.50 "does not require infliction of physical harm; rather,
the infliction of 'fear' of physical harm is sufficient." Hecker v. Cortinas, 110 Wn. App. 865, 870,
43 P.3d 50 (2002).
In Spence v. Kaminski, 103 Wn.App. 328, 12 P.3d 1030 (2000), the appellate court
affirmed the lower court's decision to issue a permanent restraining order. The respondent had
stalked, trespassed and harassed the petitioner for the past seven years. Spence at 328. He
had also made direct death threats, saying "It's $50 and an airplane ticket when I'm ready to get
rid of you." Id. The majority of the domestic violence had taken place during the marriage and
dissolution proceedings five years earlier. Id. The court found that "[t]he history of abuse and the
court's belief that Ms. Spence fears future abuse are sufficient to persuade a rational person
that she had been put in fear of imminent physical harm." Id. at 333.
In Barber v. Barber, 136 Wn.App. 512, 150 P.3d. 124 (2007), the court held that
"ecause petitioner made a showing of both past abuse and present fear of injury, she
satisfied the statutory requirements." Id. at 125. The court said that it "agree[d] with the Spence
decision that showing past violence and present fear is sufficient." Id. at 126.
The response received shows the following 3 cases.
Since a threat is usually, just words, how can one show "inflicted fear of... Harm"
I'm looking for a way to rebut this, showing that fear from verbal threats (threatened to kill if ever divorced) IS enough to feel threatened when the respondant is a current drug user (Cocaine, admitted in his statement to the court) and owns more guns than most SWAT police officers carry in their vehicle.
Getting a lawyer isn't an option, as even low income clinics aren't available given the 10 days time until the court date.
DV advocates at court are... Less than helpful.
Thank you
----
Petitioner has not shown that Respondent has inflicted the fear of imminent physical
harm, bodily injury or assault. RCW 26.50 "does not require infliction of physical harm; rather,
the infliction of 'fear' of physical harm is sufficient." Hecker v. Cortinas, 110 Wn. App. 865, 870,
43 P.3d 50 (2002).
In Spence v. Kaminski, 103 Wn.App. 328, 12 P.3d 1030 (2000), the appellate court
affirmed the lower court's decision to issue a permanent restraining order. The respondent had
stalked, trespassed and harassed the petitioner for the past seven years. Spence at 328. He
had also made direct death threats, saying "It's $50 and an airplane ticket when I'm ready to get
rid of you." Id. The majority of the domestic violence had taken place during the marriage and
dissolution proceedings five years earlier. Id. The court found that "[t]he history of abuse and the
court's belief that Ms. Spence fears future abuse are sufficient to persuade a rational person
that she had been put in fear of imminent physical harm." Id. at 333.
In Barber v. Barber, 136 Wn.App. 512, 150 P.3d. 124 (2007), the court held that
"ecause petitioner made a showing of both past abuse and present fear of injury, she
satisfied the statutory requirements." Id. at 125. The court said that it "agree[d] with the Spence
decision that showing past violence and present fear is sufficient." Id. at 126.
