Carol Marie Stutzke v. Jessica Leigh Cox

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
CAROL MARIE STUTZKE,
Respondent,
v.
JESSICA LEIGH COX,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 39801-3-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — Jessica Leigh Cox appeals the entry of a domestic
violence protection order (DVPO) restraining her from contact with her mother. We
affirm.
FACTS
Jessica Leigh Cox is the adult daughter of Carol Marie Stutzke. In May 2023, Ms.
Stutzke petitioned for a DVPO against Ms. Cox. At that time, Ms. Cox was living with
her parents after a divorce. In the petition, Ms. Stutzke described multiple episodes of
Ms. Cox becoming angry and violent.
FILED
JULY 2, 2024
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 39801-3-III
Stutzke v. Cox
2
On May 25, 2023, after a hearing on the petition,1 the trial court issued a one-year
DVPO restraining Ms. Cox from contact with Ms. Stutzke.
Ms. Cox timely appealed.
ANALYSIS
Ms. Cox contends the trial court erred when it entered the DVPO because she did
not know she could request an enlargement of time under CR 6. She also contends her
mother’s petition contained inadmissible hearsay. We reject her arguments.
First, Ms. Cox asks us to reverse the DVPO because she needed more time to
prepare her defense and did not know she could request more time under CR 6. She
seems to argue the trial court should have recognized she needed more time to respond.
CR 6 provides:
(b) Enlargement. When by these rules or by a notice given
thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or
within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its
discretion, (1) with or without motion or notice, order the period enlarged if
request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally
prescribed or as extended by a previous order or, (2) upon motion made
after the expiration of the specified period, permit the act to be done where
the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect . . . .
We have no record of Ms. Cox arguing to the trial court for it to continue the
hearing to give her time to respond. In general, we decline to review claims of error not
1 The hearing transcript is not in the record.

No. 39801-3-III
Stutzke v. Cox
3
argued below. RAP 2.5(a). Ms. Cox does not provide us any argument for not applying
this general rule. We therefore decline to review this unpreserved claim of error.
Second, Ms. Cox argues the trial court relied on impermissible hearsay evidence
contained in her mother’s petition. However, the rules of evidence need not be applied in
proceedings for protection orders. ER 1101(c)(4). Thus, even if the trial court
considered hearsay evidence, its actions would not constitute error.
Affirmed.
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.
_________________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________ _________________________________
Fearing, J. Pennell, J.