In a sharp rebuke of a trial judge’s reliance on a contested expert evaluation, the Washington State Court of Appeals Division I has reversed a King County Superior Court decision that vacated a domestic violence protection order.
The DVPO in this case was not vacated merely because Dr. Singer assessed the individual as having "no abusive behaviors to treat"---which he did---- but also because, at the conclusion of the parties' six (6) day dissolution trial, where---unlike DVPO proceedings based only on dueling declarations on a crowded DV calendar---the rules of evidence applied, both parties testified and called witnesses, including the GAL , all of whom were cross-examined about the wife's myriad allegations, and where the trial judge was able to observe their demeanors and ask questions, Judge Holloway found the the instances alleged by the wife, while found to be DV by the prior court, were de minimus isolated events and did not demonstrate a history of DV. Significantly, he also found the wife's testimony to be so incredible and unreasonable, that he ordered her to obtain a mental health evaluation. The Court of Appeals' decision is so flawed, I have petitioned the Supreme Court to accept review. Just, as a for example, the Court of Appeals ruled that the undisputed finding that my client would not resume acts of domestic violence was not a "substantial change of circumstances" and that Judge Holloway's findings were not relevant, even though the Protection Order expressly stated that it was "subject to orders in a dissolution or paternity proceeding". I would be happy to discuss this case, and the other heinous flaws in our current approach to DV, with anyone at anytime, with the idea of improving it and basing it on evidence rather than political correctness. Our present approach is a true travesty, where good fathers are routinely separated from their children for bogus reasons without any real examination of the facts or the law, much less, any regard to the harm caused to the children by that separation.
In Case 23-3-02313-1 SEA there is a document titled "William Singer Credentials Report." It is a report prepared by a King County attorney, and it states "There is no proof that Mr. Singer has a doctorate." Signed and dated January 22,2024.
finally this man needs to be in jail the damage he has caused so many mothers.
How sickening that this man was able to get away with this for so long! The damage and danger he inflicted upon his community!
Is this the same person, or different, that had the complaint against him? The cases sound similar but slightly different
The DVPO in this case was not vacated merely because Dr. Singer assessed the individual as having "no abusive behaviors to treat"---which he did---- but also because, at the conclusion of the parties' six (6) day dissolution trial, where---unlike DVPO proceedings based only on dueling declarations on a crowded DV calendar---the rules of evidence applied, both parties testified and called witnesses, including the GAL , all of whom were cross-examined about the wife's myriad allegations, and where the trial judge was able to observe their demeanors and ask questions, Judge Holloway found the the instances alleged by the wife, while found to be DV by the prior court, were de minimus isolated events and did not demonstrate a history of DV. Significantly, he also found the wife's testimony to be so incredible and unreasonable, that he ordered her to obtain a mental health evaluation. The Court of Appeals' decision is so flawed, I have petitioned the Supreme Court to accept review. Just, as a for example, the Court of Appeals ruled that the undisputed finding that my client would not resume acts of domestic violence was not a "substantial change of circumstances" and that Judge Holloway's findings were not relevant, even though the Protection Order expressly stated that it was "subject to orders in a dissolution or paternity proceeding". I would be happy to discuss this case, and the other heinous flaws in our current approach to DV, with anyone at anytime, with the idea of improving it and basing it on evidence rather than political correctness. Our present approach is a true travesty, where good fathers are routinely separated from their children for bogus reasons without any real examination of the facts or the law, much less, any regard to the harm caused to the children by that separation.
Nelson Berry (206) 441-5444.
In Case 23-3-02313-1 SEA there is a document titled "William Singer Credentials Report." It is a report prepared by a King County attorney, and it states "There is no proof that Mr. Singer has a doctorate." Signed and dated January 22,2024.
relying on this assessment to find that the respondent had changed his behavior. --- They don't change ever!