Jaden Singh, Appellant V. Katherine Walz & James Walz, Respondents

?G!5JU:;-8 	Aii S- hb
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
No. 	72121-6-1
KATHERINE A. WALZ (DOB 7/12/2004)
and JAMES L. WALZ,
Respondents,
v.
JADEN SINGH (DOB 1/5/2004),
Appellant.
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	June 8, 2015
Leach, J. — On June 10, 2014, following a series of altercations between two
fourth graders at school, the trial court entered a one-year antiharassment protection
order against ten-year-old Jaden Singh. 	Because sufficient evidence supports the
trial court's decision, we affirm.
FACTS
On June 2, 2014, the father of nine-year-old Katherine Walz petitioned for a
protection order on her behalf. 	The petition identified three specific incidents that
occurred at the school in the last month and alleged that the school had been unable
to 	protect 	Katherine from 	Jaden's 	ongoing 	aggressive 	conduct. 	The trial 	court
entered a temporary protection order and set the next hearing date for June 10,
2014.

No. 72121-6-1/2
At the June 10 hearing, the court appointed Jaden's mother as his guardian ad
litem.1 	She testified that Katherine's antagonizing behavior was at least partly to
blame 	for 	the 	ongoing 	conflict 	between 	the 	two 	children. 	Katherine's 	parents
maintained that Jaden's aggressive behavior was escalating and that the school had
been unable to prevent the continuing harassment. 	Katherine also testified briefly.
Jaden was not present.
The court found that Jaden's conduct constituted unlawful harassment and
entered a one-year protection order that required him to transfer to a different school.
The court noted that the animosity had continued over an extended period of time
and concluded that further incidents would likely continue if the two children remained
in the same school. 	The trial court denied Jaden's motion for reconsideration. 	Jaden
appeals.2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Where, as here, the trial court has weighed the evidence, we limit our review
to determining if substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings and, if so,
See RCW 4.08.050.
2 On appeal, Katherine's parents assert that the appeal is moot because the
school and law enforcement officials have refused to enforce the protection order.
Jaden contends that the appeal is not moot because this court can still remove the
stigma 	of the 	protection 	order from 	his 	record. 	Because 	substantial 	evidence
supports the trial court's order, we need not address these contentions.

No. 72121-6-1/3
whether the 	findings 	support the 	conclusions 	of 	law.3 	Substantial 	evidence 	is
evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded and rational person of the truth of the
declared premise.4
ANALYSIS
A court may enter a 	civil antiharassment protection order if it finds 	by a
preponderance 	of 	the 	evidence 	that 	"unlawful 	harassment" 	exists.5 	Unlawful
harassment consists of (1) a knowing and willful (2) course of conduct (3) directed at
a specific person (4) that seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to that
person, and (5) serves no legitimate or lawful purpose.6 	A "course of conduct" is
defined as "a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time,
however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose."7
Jaden challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that his conduct
was "knowing and willful." 	He contends that the trial court failed to accord sufficient
weight to his emotional and social issues, to the aggressive warning that Katherine's
3 In re Dependency of P.P.. 58 Wn. App. 18, 25, 792 P.2d 159 (1990).
4 In re Welfare of T.B., 150 Wn. App. 599, 607, 209 P.3d 497 (2009).
5 RCW 10.14.080(3).
6 RCW 10.14.020(2): see also Burchell v. Thibault. 74 Wn. App. 517, 521,874
P.2d 196 (1994).
7 RCW 10.14.020(1).

No. 72121-6-1/4
father 	gave 	him, 	and 	to 	Katherine's 	intimidating 	physical 	size 	and 	alleged
confrontational behavior.
But Jaden essentially invites this court to review credibility assessments and
the weight to be accorded the evidence. 	This court must defer to the trier of fact on
issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the
evidence.8
Undisputed evidence established that Jaden 	pushed 	Katherine, 	called 	her
names, and stomped on her foot in three separate incidents during May 2014. 	The
school reprimanded Jaden for the pushing incident and suspended him for three
days for stomping on Katherine's foot. 	The record before the trial court also included
a history of similar acts that occurred earlier during the school year and evidence
indicating that the conflict between the children had begun as early as the first grade.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Jaden's actions constituted a
knowing and willful course of conduct directed at Katherine.
In a contention first raised in a motion for reconsideration, Jaden asserts that
before entering the civil antiharassment order, the trial court should have determined
whether he had the capacity to commit a crime.9 	Because Jaden has not supported
8 See State v. Myers, 133 Wn.2d 26, 38, 941 P.2d 1102(1997).
9 See RCW 9A.04.050; State v. T.E.H., 91 Wn. App. 908, 913, 960 P.2d 441
(1998).
-4-

No. 72121-6-1/5
this contention with citation to 	relevant authority or coherent legal argument, we
decline to consider it.10
Jaden 	also 	contends 	that 	the 	antiharassment 	order 	was 	"unnecessary"
because the school had a plan to separate the children after Jaden returned from his
suspension. 	But the evidence before the trial court indicated that the school had
previously undertaken a series of efforts that had proved ineffective. 	Jaden fails to
demonstrate that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in declining to defer to
the school to solve the problem.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
/fCdsey 	>J
10 See Saunders v. Lloyd's of London. 113 Wn.2d 330, 345, 779 P.2d 249
(1989) (appellate court will decline to review an issue that is unsupported by cogent
argument and briefing).
-5-