Amanda Helen Taylor v. Todd Emory Taylor

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
AMANDA HELEN TAYLOR,
Appellant,
v.
TODD EMERY TAYLOR,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 39380-1-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FEARING, C.J. — Amanda Taylor appeals from the superior court’s denial of a
protection order she sought against her former husband. Because Taylor’s appeal
primarily questions the superior court’s determination of credibility of the parties, we
affirm.
FACTS
This appeal entails the relationship between former spouses Amanda and Todd
Taylor. In September 2021, Amanda Taylor initiated a proceeding to dissolve her
marriage with Todd. The Taylors have two children, C.T. and L.T. C.T. was 13 years
old and L.T. was 11 years old in September 2021.
In January 2022, Amanda Taylor filed a motion for a temporary family law order
removing Todd from the family home. The dissolution court granted the motion and
FILED
FEBRUARY 6, 2024
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals Division III

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
2
afforded Todd thirty days to move from the house. The Taylors finalized the marital
dissolution in August 2022.
This appeal concerns the denial of a petition seeking a protection order, which
Amanda Taylor filed in October 2022. In the petition, Amanda complained of
controlling behavior by Todd before and after she filed the marital dissolution. In her
petition, Amanda averred:
I am afraid of how Todd may react in response to this request [for a
protection order], towards the [children] and/or myself. This is based on
the prior CPS situation with [L.T.] after I filed for divorce, and the
threatening behavior from Todd towards myself related to the order for him
to move out of the house. I am also afraid of the ongoing physical
outbursts from [L.T.] towards myself and [C.T.] after contact with Todd.
. . . .
I have been afraid of Todd’s actions for several years and I continue
to be afraid of his actions on a daily basis. Our children, [C.T.] and [L.T.],
are also afraid as well. . . As Todd’s behavior continued after the finalized
divorce documents, I reached out to the YWCA domestic violence program
for help. This is where I learned about the Power and Control Wheel that
identifies different forms of abuse, and also about the concept of coercive
control.
Physical aggression or threats of physical aggression directly from
Todd happen occasionally. When discussing his own medical condition
back in 2020, he talked about how I couldn’t cope with the pain if he hit me
across the stomach, smashed both my hands with a hammer, and alternated
sharp pokes with fire on my feet . . . About three months later in February
of 2022, we had the hearing [to remove Todd from the home]. I was not
given a link to attend the hearing, but Todd ended up with 30 days to move
out. When Todd arrived back at the house that same evening of the
hearing, he stood directly behind me while I was doing dishes. In a low
voice, he commented “well, that sure went in your favor.” I was very
scared and did not respond. Then later that night, I was starting to fall
asleep on the couch. Todd walked upstairs and stood about two feet from
the couch in the dark living room staring at me. He did not say anything,

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
3
but continued to stand there for several minutes. My heart was beating out
of my chest, and I did not know if he was going to do something or not. He
ended up going back down the stairs. . .
The verbal and emotional abuse happens very frequently. Prior to
filing for divorce in September of 2021, Todd would frequently make
humiliating and degrading comments toward me. He would tell me things
like I was selfish, stupid, couldn’t manage money, I wasted time, I was
disorganized, have bad anxiety, and [was] dirty. When I tried to explain
how I was doing the best I could, he would say it was a “pity party for
Amanda,” “you never cared about anyone else,” or I would “let him suffer
while I went and did fun things with the kids.” . . . [W]hen I mentioned not
being invited on a weekend trip he said “maybe if you behaved then you
could go too.” Shortly after I filed for divorce in September of 2021, the
way Todd communicated these types of things started to shift. Todd
directed some of them towards [C.T.] and [L.T.] instead. . . . Todd also
added saying things to [L.T.] such as “you are the reason your mom and I
are getting divorced.” And “your mom and sister love their friends more
than you.” These types of comments would send [L.T.] into emotional
distress to the point where she acted out physically. She would hit, punch,
kick, and slap me. She would also kick doors and walls and throw
objects. . . .
After Todd moved [from the family residence], he kept using [L.T.]
as a way to continue the abuse. The degrading comments he made to [L.T.]
continued. . . I hoped this situation would stop after the divorce paperwork
was completed. However, it did not. The pattern is the same. Todd
reaches out to [L.T.] through phone call and/or text message. . . . [L.T.]
becomes upset to the point of hitting, kicking, punching, slapping, and
pulling my hair. She has left visible bruises on my arms and legs, punched
my head so hard with her fists I have a headache overnight, and grabbed
my arm and pulled me to the ground. . . .
. . . .
In addition to the physical incidents, Todd uses his phone to take
videos when he is made [sic] and threatens to use those videos against me.
. . . .
Todd will frequently blame me for keeping the kids away from him.
. . . .
I am in constant fear with everything I do or don’t do, and how Todd
will use that against me. This fear is directly related to past threats and
actions from Todd. . . .

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
4
. . . .
Todd has also taken actions to isolate me from others. . . .
Other types of non-physical abusive behaviors by Todd include
removing and withholding joint personal belongings. . . .
Another primary way Todd maintains coercive control is through
financial exploitation. He frequently withholds, deceives, or lies about
financial information for his own personal gain. . . . [B]y May of 2019, I
found out that Todd had opened his own individual checking account and
transferred his direct deposit there instead. . . .
. . . .
Since 2019, Todd threatened many times that he could get a divorce
at any time, and he could also force a sale of the house (text message
attached dated 12-11-19). . . .
. . . .
The financial abuse goes well beyond just the house, though. When
Todd submitted his pay stub with the divorce response in 2021, I also
realized he had opened a new additional retirement account through his
employer at some point–likely back in 2019.
. . . .
I have spent the last three years living in fear. Despite living in
separate places and the divorce being final, Todd has continued the
physical, verbal, emotional, and financial abuse. . . .
Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 9-27.
In a declaration opposing the petition for a protection order, Todd Taylor avowed:
I feel the case should be dismissed as I do not pose any danger to the
children or Amanda. I love my children and put an emphasis on providing
them as much love and support as I can. I have had very limited interaction
with Amanda since the divorce was final and plan to have even less moving
forward.
I believe it is important to mention that the court has already heard
the majority of the matters being presented in this petition, and no
restraining order has been filed as a result of those proceedings. A
protection order was not requested or ordered on the Temporary Family
Law Order filed 2/23/22. A protection order was not requested or ordered
on any of the final divorce decree paperwork filed 8/22/22.

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
5
. . . I have no interest in seeing, speaking with, or communicating
with Amanda unless it is absolutely necessary for the children. The current
parenting plan requires that I pick up both children directly from their
schools and drop them off back at their schools, when school is in session,
which has been the case since our divorce was final. I am currently
required to pick up and drop off at Amanda’s residence when school is not
in session, but I stay in the driveway, the children get in my vehicle, and we
leave. Amanda has typically remained in the residence during these
exchanges, so there has been very limited contact.
. . . .
As I read through the petition, my understanding is the current
petition asks for a protection order for Amanda and both children to prevent
physical harm. The petition references the same emergency room visit /
CPS case that was heard by the court during the 2/23/22 Temporary Family
Law order in our divorce case 21-3-01772-32. As mentioned during those
proceedings, CPS has never contacted me or my attorney about any case
involving me. No restraining order was ordered as a result of those
proceedings. I noticed in the paperwork served on me, the After Visit
Summary from the emergency room Visit for [L.T.] on 11/21/21, provides
the Diagnosis as a “contusion of fifth toe of left foot.” I am not a doctor,
but my understanding is this means a bruised toe. Filing a protection order
against me for a bruised toe an entire year after it occurred, insinuating that
it was my fault the child’s toe got bruised seems ridiculous to me. I did not
know about the “injury” or even find out about the emergency room trip
until the insurance statement was mailed to me. And as stated in my
previous declaration filed 2-17-22, [L.T.] and I spent time together the
evening after the emergency room trip, playing games and having fun. If
there was a legitimate concern for the child’s safety, why did Amanda
allow the child to spend the following evening with me alone, and why was
the child so willing to do so? [L.T.] did not even mention the emergency
room visit from the previous day. The whole situation has been completely
taken out of context in the way Amanda has presented it. . . . I have never
intentionally hurt any child. As previously mentioned, I can provide
multiple declarations from individuals who have spent time with me and
[L.T.], all of which will support my claim that I have no intention of
hurting anyone.
I can’t comment to incidents between Amanda and the kids since I
was not there, but I am concerned to learn there have been multiple

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
6
physical alterations involving Amanda and [L.T.]. I agreed to counseling
for the children in the divorce decree.
. . . .
Regarding the stalking behavior restrictions, the only video that is in
question is the one Amanda had the children take of me, and the transcript
Amanda made from it. The video seemed strange at the time since the
children appeared to be coached on items to video, some of which seem to
be missing from the provided transcript such as the girls checking the
expiration dates on items in my freezer and fridge. I feel they must have
been coached because they made a big deal about some items that I had put
in freezer bags stating the food was expired. I had to point out the date was
written with a sharpie marker by me, and was the date I put the items in the
freezer, not the date the food goes bad. My impression was they were
instructed to check for dates on items and didn’t completely understand
what they were looking for.
Regarding comments about speaking to the children regarding the
court case, I am not trying to speak on court proceedings, but I must admit
it is difficult to explain to the children why four Sheriff deputies arrived at
my apartment to serve the paperwork for this case on me during my
weekend with the children. I tried to explain that they had paperwork to
give me and that I was going to my bedroom to read it. Of course they had
questions. I did my best to avoid them and just say I can’t discuss it, sorry.
I had the same experience when I was required to move from the home
during our divorce proceedings. I tried to explain that I had to move, and
was told by [L.T.] that she did not want me to. I responded by explaining
that I didn’t have a choice, but I would spend time with her as soon as I
found a place to live, which only prompted concern about where I was
going to stay. Not my finest moment for sure, but it was not an attack on
Amanda, it was just a difficult scenario to work through and explain. I
never would have imagined that a year later, I am back in court trying to
defend my character on what I said when I was removed from my own
home, through no fault of my own.
. . . I am not physically hurting anyone. I have no desire to
communicate with Amanda unless I need to for the children. Contrary to
the information Amanda provided in this case, I approach being a father
much as I approach life. I encourage learning and looking for new ways to
complete tasks. I don’t encourage my children to be mean to their mother,
just the opposite. Much like I stated in the video transcript provided by
Amanda in the case, I suggested to my children they should make the most

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
7
of the weekend and have a good one. I love my children and dedicate most
of my free time to them. I am not an angry or violent person.
CP at 129-134.
PROCEDURE
On October 19, 2022, Amanda Taylor filed her petition for a domestic violence
protection order against Todd Taylor. Amanda named herself, C.T., and L.T. as the
persons to be protected by the order. Documents attached to the petition included a
statement by Amanda, a statement by a family friend, a summary of one of L.T.’s doctor
visits, a summary of one of Amanda’s doctor visits, emails between Amanda and her
attorney, the declarations Amanda and Todd submitted in February 2022 regarding the
motion to evict Todd from the family home, a copy of the February order, and
screenshots of text message conversations between Amanda and Todd and between
Amanda and the children.
Todd Taylor filed a declaration in opposition to the petition for the protection
order on October 31, 2022. Amanda Taylor filed a reply declaration on November 2.
The superior court conducted a hearing on the petition for the protection order on
November 21, 2022. At the beginning of the hearing, Amanda Taylor asked the trial
court if it wished copies of the statutes and cases she planned to rely on in her argument.
The court declined but stated that it would ask for copies of the authorities if need be.

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
8
Amanda proceeded to argue that Todd committed domestic violence by way of coercive
control.
At the conclusion of the November 21 hearing, the trial court denied the petition.
The trial court commented:
Within the context of domestic violence, of course, I’ve considered
whether there’s evidence of domestic violence in terms of evidence of
bodily injury, bodily harm, assault, or whether there’s evidence of coercive
control, whether there’s evidence of unlawful harassment, whether there’s
evidence of stalking. . . .
. . . .
And so on one set of circumstances I’m evaluating with victims of
domestic violence, even with counsel, if there’s evidence that that person is
afraid of consequences, if they’re afraid for reprisal, it could be reasons
why things don’t come forward. Alternatively, in terms of a family law
action, it certainly happens as well that individuals can be upset about how
things go and consequently they’re looking for retaliation. There’s a
number of things that can really explain this set of circumstances.
What I have a duty to do is evaluate this evidence and apply it to, of
course, the legal standard of preponderance of the evidence. So, I’m
looking for is there more likely than not or a preponderance of the evidence
that supports any facet of domestic violence.
In terms of the allegations, there are a lot of allegations . . . that Mr.
Taylor will make statements, primarily to [L.T.] but sometimes to [C.T.],
and they are provocative allegedly in nature. They’re inciteful. [L.T.]
becomes upset. And then recent behavior would be that [L.T.] is taking out
her frustration on her mom by hitting you, slapping you, all sorts of
different inappropriate responses. And so, of course, I’m trying to discern
whether I find there’s evidence to support that Mr. Taylor is doing that or
whether there is other plausible explanations for that type of behavior.
And, in terms of a situation like I have before me where I have, Ms.
Taylor, you telling me one set of circumstances, and Mr. Taylor telling me
another set of circumstances, and Mr. Dudley [Todd Taylor’s counsel]
argued at length Mr. Taylor’s perspective, I look for when I have Mr.
Taylor denying these allegations and indicating that he’s a victim of power
and control, I’m looking for what evidence do I have to support one party’s

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
9
claims over the other. Right now I have your word, Ms. Taylor, over Mr.
Taylor’s word.
So, I look for is there, for instance, extrinsic or outside evidence that
could be supportive of one party’s position. While certainly we can have a
claim made to child protective services, or a claim made to a physician, I’m
looking for is there evidence that would warrant an investigation. Namely,
for instance, in terms of a child protective service’s claim, I would see
evidence that they’re investigating or that there’s a report that it was either
founded or unfounded, and as I looked through all the evidence I don’t
have that report. I have the allegations, but I don’t have a report. And
while the child was taken in for allegations of assault, in terms of whether
or not her foot or ankle was slammed in the door and those kind of things,
ultimately the doctor’s findings were a contusion on the toe. Contusion of
course is bruising. So, I don’t have evidence exactly of what happened.
And while hearsay is admissible, I’m also evaluating what weight to
give that. I have a 14-year-old child, a 12-year-old child, and I have
allegations from you, Ms. Taylor, as what they’re saying, but I don’t have
any additional information. I’m looking for do I have for instance
disclosures to a school counselor, or do I have disclosures to a teacher, or
a physician in terms of things that seem to be genuine in nature about their
assessment of credibility.
I, of course, as everyone knows, I don’t have any of those kind of
reports, so I’m back to Ms. Taylor what you told me and what Mr. Taylor
has told me. So, it comes down to ultimately credibility.
I don’t find, in this instance, that there’s evidence that Ms. Taylor
you were reluctant to make these statements during the course of the
dissolution for the reasons I have indicated because in fact in those emails
there’s information exchanged between you and Ms. Deonier [Amanda’s
attorney]. Some of those were brought to light in brief litigation and some
of those didn’t go any further. I don’t know the ultimate reasons about the
strategy behind if it didn’t come forward, but the Court, to the extent it was
litigated, didn’t make any particular findings that led to restrictions.
There was one statement that I read and this is in, Ms. Taylor, your
narrative where you had alleged that Mr. Taylor back in 2020 talked about
how you couldn’t cope with the pain if he hit you across the stomach with a
baseball bat, smashed both your hands with a hammer, and alternating
sharp pokes with fire on your feet. You presented that as an example of
physical aggression or threats of aggression that would happen
occasionally.

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
10
As I’ve said, I looked at all the emails including that email. So, that
statement isn’t the only statement in conjunction. There is, of course, two
pages of text pages, and I read it in its entirety. Perhaps not real artful.
Don’t mean to be critical.
But, in terms of the narrative, that wasn’t conveyed by Mr. Taylor as
a threat but instead upon reading the two-page narrative and the text, it
was really clear to this Court Mr. Taylor was conveying how he felt
emotionally and the pain that he felt not just from lack of sleep and those
kind of things but otherwise. And so that wording was in context of trying
to give you perspective as to how he felt. It wasn’t the fact that he was
going to do that. Clearly, it was instead a statement that a way to convey
this is what it would be like if you suffered that kind of pain, the pain I’m
feeling, and then, of course, he closes with that it would take that for there
to be any real reasonable conversations. Otherwise, if you don’t agree with
that perspective, then sign the papers and they can both move on.
So, when I consider that, it’s concerning to me that that lacks
credibility for the Court because it wasn’t a threat. It wasn’t him
threatening to do those things but instead, of course, it’s in the context of
conveying his feelings and telling in his own words this is what it would be
like if this happened to you that’s the level of pain that I’m feeling. “I”
meaning Mr. Taylor. So, that affects my assessment in terms of credibility.
So, I don’t find that I have sufficient evidence by a preponderance of
the evidence that leads me to conclude that there’s been domestic violence,
unlawful harassment, coercive control, stalking, or otherwise. So, for those
reasons, I’ll be denying the petition today.
Report of Proceedings (RP) at 21-27 (emphasis added).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On appeal, Amanda Taylor complains that the superior court erroneously assessed
the credibility of the parties and, in particular, relied on misleading evidence presented by
Todd Taylor. She next complains that the superior court applied the wrong legal standard
when denying her petition for a protection order. Finally, she contends that the superior
court refused to review the case law she wished to present to the court.

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
11
Witness Credibility
Amanda Taylor argues that the trial court erred in analyzing the parties’ credibility
because it relied on discrete incidents of behavior instead of a pattern of behavior and
relied on misleading, biased statements. This court defers to the trier of fact on the
persuasiveness of the evidence, witness credibility, and conflicting testimony. In re
Knight, 178 Wn. App. 929, 937, 317 P.3d 1068 (2014). The law does not require any
particular methods by which a trial court assesses credibility.
Because we defer to the superior court’s findings of credibility, we do not review
all of the examples forwarded by Amanda Taylor of comments from the trial court that
suggest error in the court finding Todd Taylor as more credible. We give two instances.
Amanda Taylor asserts that the trial court explained to her, on the date she filed
the petition, that she did not qualify for an immediate protection order because nothing
significant had happened since the parties’ divorce. Amanda maintains that, by denying
an immediate protection order, the trial court acted in conflict with RCW 7.105.225(2)(e),
which provides:
[t]he court may not deny or dismiss a petition for a protection order
on the grounds that: . . . [t]he conduct at issue did not occur recently or
because of the passage of time since the last incident of conduct giving rise
to the petition.

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
12
Nevertheless, a denial of an immediate protection order based on the lack of recent
alleged domestic violence does not equate to denying the underlying petition for the
protection order.
Amanda Taylor argues that the trial court abused its discretion when analyzing the
parties’ credibility because it focused on specific text messages and did not understand
that the text messages were part of a larger pattern of coercive control. She cites the
following portion of the superior court’s ruling as support for this argument:
There was one statement that I read and this is in, Ms. Taylor, your
narrative where you had alleged that Mr. Taylor back in 2020 talked about
how you couldn’t cope with the pain if he hit you across the stomach with a
baseball bat, smashed both your hands with a hammer, and alternating
sharp pokes with fire on your feet. You presented that as an example of
physical aggression or threats of aggression that would happen
occasionally.
As I’ve said, I looked at all the emails including that email. So, that
statement isn’t the only statement in conjunction. There is, of course, two
pages of text pages, and I read it in its entirety. Perhaps not real artful.
Don’t mean to be critical.
But, in terms of the narrative, that wasn’t conveyed by Mr. Taylor as
a threat but instead upon reading the two-page narrative and the text, it was
really clear to this Court Mr. Taylor was conveying how he felt emotionally
and the pain that he felt not just from lack of sleep and those kind of things
but otherwise. And so that wording was in context of trying to give you
perspective as to how he felt. It wasn’t the fact that he was going to do
that.
RP at 25-26. Amanda does not elaborate on how the trial court mistakenly assessed
credibility based on this passage.

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
13
The trial court could reasonably question Amanda Taylor’s credibility based on
many factors. She did not seek a protection order during the marital dissolution
proceeding. Amanda argues that she did not fully understand the control exerted by Todd
Taylor during this time, and we recognize that sometimes the victim of coercive control
does not understand its nature until years later. Still, the superior court could reasonably
conclude otherwise. Amanda claimed that CPS investigated an injured foot of one of the
daughters. But CPS found no abuse. Amanda suggested that Todd impliedly threatened
to beat her with a baseball bat, when Todd only suggested that he felt like someone beat
him with a bat.
Legal Standard
Amanda Taylor argues that the trial court, when assessing coercive control,
employed a mistaken standard that demanded objective evidence of physical assault
severe enough to warrant an investigation. Nevertheless, other than citing the portion of
the record where she believes the court articulated the alleged incorrect standard,
Amanda does not further discuss the trial court’s analysis.
RCW 7.105.010defines “domestic violence” for purposes of a protection order:
(9) “Domestic violence” means:
(a) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of
physical harm, bodily injury, or assault; nonconsensual sexual conduct or
nonconsensual sexual penetration; coercive control; unlawful harassment;
or stalking of one intimate partner by another intimate partner; or
(b) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of
physical harm, bodily injury, or assault; nonconsensual sexual conduct or

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
14
nonconsensual sexual penetration; coercive control; unlawful harassment;
or stalking of one family or household member by another family or
household member.
(Emphasis added.) RCW 7.105.010 defines “coercive control” as:
(4)(a) “Coercive control” means a pattern of behavior that is used to
cause another to suffer physical, emotional, or psychological harm, and in
purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and
personal liberty. In determining whether the interference is unreasonable,
the court shall consider the context and impact of the pattern of behavior
from the perspective of a similarly situated person. Examples of coercive
control include, but are not limited to, engaging in any of the following:
(i) Intimidation or controlling or compelling conduct by:
(A) Damaging, destroying, or threatening to damage or destroy, or
forcing the other party to relinquish, goods, property, or items of special
value;
. . . .
(E) Communicating, directly or indirectly, the intent to:
(I) Harm the other party’s children, family members, friends, or pets,
including by use of physical forms of violence;
. . . .
(H) Engaging in sexual or reproductive coercion;
(ii) Causing dependence, confinement, or isolation of the other party
from friends, relatives, or other sources of support, including schooling and
employment, or subjecting the other party to physical confinement or
restraint;
. . . .
(iv) Controlling, exerting undue influence over, interfering with,
regulating, or monitoring the other party’s movements, communications,
daily behavior, finances, economic resources, or employment, including but
not limited to interference with or attempting to limit access to services for
children of the other party, such as health care, medication, child care, or
school-based extracurricular activities;
. . . .or
(vi) Engaging in psychological aggression, including inflicting fear,
humiliating, degrading, or punishing the other party.

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
15
Amanda Taylor relies on the following language from the trial court’s ruling to
argue that the court used the wrong standard:
[THE COURT:] . . . Right now I have your word, Ms. Taylor, over
Mr. Taylor’s word.
So, I look for is there, for instance, extrinsic or outside evidence that
could be supportive of one party’s position. While certainly we can have a
claim made to child protective services, or a claim made to a physician, I’m
looking for is there evidence that would warrant an investigation. Namely,
for instance, in terms of a child protective service’s claim, I would see
evidence that they’re investigating or that there’s a report that it was either
founded or unfounded, and as I looked through all the evidence I don’t have
that report. I have the allegations, but I don’t have a report. And while the
child was taken in for allegations of assault, in terms of whether or not her
foot or ankle was slammed in the door and those kind of things, ultimately
the doctor’s findings were a contusion on the toe. Contusion of course is
bruising. So, I don’t have evidence exactly of what happened.
And while hearsay is admissible, I’m also evaluating what weight to
give that. I have a 14-year-old child, a 12-year-old child, and I have
allegations from you, Ms. Taylor, as what they’re saying, but I don’t have
any additional information. I’m looking for do I have for instance
disclosures to a school counselor, or do I have disclosures to a teacher, or a
physician in terms of things that seem to be genuine in nature about their
assessment of credibility.
RP at 23-24. This portion of the superior court’s ruling does not suggest that the trial
court employed a standard that required objective evidence of physical harm severe
enough to warrant an investigation when analyzing coercive control. Instead, the court
explained that it needed to find domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence
and, because neither party submitted evidence other than declarations and records of
communications between them, the court needed to weigh Amanda’s word versus Todd’s
word.

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
16
The superior court’s ruling recognized the legislature recently added coercive
control as a basis for a protective order. Nothing in the ruling suggests the court failed to
understand the nature of coercive control as defined in RCW 7.105.010(4).
Case Law
Finally, Amanda Taylor argues that the trial court erred because it failed to ask for
copies of cases she used in her argument and failed to cite those cases in its decision.
Taylor cites no authority that requires a trial court to accept copies of cases that a party
seeks to hand the court during a hearing.
The three cases Amanda Taylor sought to present to the superior court were State
v. Nguyen, 10 Wn. App. 2d 797, 450 P.3d 630 (2019), State v. Abdi-Issa, 199 Wn.2d 163,
504 P.3d 223 (2022) and State v. Becklin, 163 Wn.2d 519, 182 P.3d 944 (2008).
Nevertheless, those cases help none in determining whether domestic violence took place
through coercive control. State v. Nguyen concerned the sufficiency of evidence
supporting a felony stalking conviction. State v. Abdi-Issa addressed whether animal
cruelty is a form of domestic violence. State v. Becklin concerned a felony stalking
charge and statutory interpretation of a stalking statute.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Amanda Taylor’s petition for a domestic
violence protection order.

No. 39380-1-III,
Taylor v. Taylor
17
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
_________________________________
Fearing, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
______________________________
Cooney, J.