King County Superior Court Motion Exposes Evaluator’s Role in DVPO Denial

On March 13, 2026, counsel for Melissa Strawn filed a sweeping Motion for Reconsideration seeking to reverse a King County Superior Court order that stripped her of her Domestic Violence Protection Order.

At the center of this legal battle is the outsized influence of a highly scrutinized evaluator and a systemic judicial delay that leaves victims in a dangerous legal limbo.

The 15-page motion, along with its accompanying sworn declaration, paints a deeply troubling picture of a court system that relies on legally erroneous evaluations to deny victims their statutory safety protections.

The Illusion of Treatment

According to the filing, the core of the court’s legal error rests on a staggering misinterpretation of what constitutes domestic violence treatment, anchored by the heavily criticized practices of evaluator Dr. William Singer.

The motion severely scrutinizes a handwritten finding by the court stating that the restrained party “partially acknowledged responsibility by participating in DV treatment” and is “in compliance and making progress.”

The filing states that there is simply no evidence in the record to support this judicial conclusion.

Instead, the restrained party only completed a behavioral assessment by Dr. Singer, which resulted in a “Level 0” recommendation for no treatment.

Under the Washington Administrative Code, an assessment is merely a precursor to treatment, not the treatment itself.

More alarmingly, the filing highlights that Dr. Singer’s “Level 0” assessment was based largely on the restrained party’s self-reporting, in which he completely denied any abuse.

As the motion bluntly notes: “An assessment premised on denial of abuse and lack of accountability is not evidence of change—it reflects the absence of it.”

DSHS Scrutiny

Further compounding the breakdown in court oversight, a declaration filed by Strawn’s attorney, Rasham Nassar, reveals disturbing irregularities regarding Dr. Singer’s administrative conduct.

As readers of The Olympic Herald may recall from our January 21 report, the Department of Social and Health Services issued a formal written warning and a “founded” complaint against Dr. Singer and the Northwest Evaluation Center on November 6, 2025.

State investigators found that Dr. Singer failed to meet critical state standards by ignoring victim statements from court documents and inappropriately diminishing the need for treatment based on a lack of criminal charges or police reports.

DSHS Domestic Violence Intervention Treatment Program Supervisor Amie Roberts emphasized that such investigations are necessary to ensure programs do not “behave in a way that placed victims at risk.”

As part of the resulting Corrective Action Plan, DSHS required Dr. Singer to amend his assessment to meet state standards. When counsel attempted to obtain the mandated amended report for this current case, Dr. Singer provided a screenshot claiming he had filed the document under a King County docket sub-number.

However, counsel’s sworn declaration provides evidence that this sub-number is a phantom—it does not correspond to any visible entry on the public court docket.

A court that would anchor the denial of a victim’s safety on a “Level 0” assessment from an evaluator actively facing DSHS corrective action—and whose amended report cannot even be properly located in the court record—appears to represent a shocking failure of systemic scrutiny.

Other Flawed Evaluations

Dr. Singer is not a new figure in these controversies. The motion highlights that the factual posture of this case perfectly mirrors Condel v. Condel, a recent Division I Court of Appeals decision.

As reported by the Herald on February 9, the Court of Appeals overturned a King County ruling that vacated a protection order, explicitly citing “significant flaws” in a Dr. Singer assessment.

In Condel, the appellate panel found that relying on a “Level 0” assessment—where Dr. Singer justified his recommendation because the respondent “denies all DV” and faced no arrests—was an abuse of discretion and a direct violation of the Washington Administrative Code.

The appellate opinion bluntly stated that treatment recommendations “must not be diminished by factors such as the absence of legal charges.”

Yet, the court in Strawn’s case seemingly bypassed this directly on-point precedent, adopting an almost identical flawed rationale.

Beyond the factual dispute over Dr. Singer’s evaluation, the CR 59 motion argues the court committed direct errors of law by relying on factors that state statutes explicitly forbid—such as the passage of time or the absence of new violations, which are merely the expected baseline of a protection order.

Perhaps most troubling, the court appeared to weaponize the protected person’s circumstances to justify canceling the order.

A System Paralyzed by Delay

The consequences of these flawed evaluations and legal misapplications leave survivors incredibly vulnerable, an issue made far worse by prolonged inaction from the bench.

Strawn’s attorney filed the Reconsideration motion exactly on the 10-day deadline. Despite this, the court has sat on the motion for over a month without issuing a ruling.

A system relying on phantom evaluations and plagued by procedural delays actively puts survivors in the crosshairs.

How You Can Help: To support Melissa Strawn with her legal funds during this ongoing battle, a community fundraiser has been established. You can help boost her fight for justice by visiting her GoFundMe page at: https://www.gofundme.com/f/melissastrawn