Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.105
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.105.315 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) When issuing an order after notice to the respondent and a hearing, the court may either grant relief for a fixed period of time or enter a permanent order of protection. Other than for antiharassment orders, the court shall not grant relief for less than one year unless the petitioner has specifically requested relief for a shorter period of time.
(2)(a) If a protection order restrains the respondent from contacting the respondent's minor children, the restraint must be for a fixed period not to exceed one year. This limitation is not applicable to protection orders issued under chapter 26.09, 26.26A, or 26.26B RCW.
(b) If the petitioner has petitioned for relief on behalf of the respondent's minor children, the court shall advise the petitioner that if the petitioner wants to continue protection for a period beyond one year, the petitioner may either petition for renewal pursuant to the provisions of this chapter or may seek relief pursuant to the provisions of chapter 26.09, 26.26A, or 26.26B RCW.
[ 2021 c 215 s 40.]

Notes:

Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2024–2026 · leading case: Jamie Ann Sullivan v. Cory Daniel Schuyler, 556 P.3d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jamie Ann Sullivan v. Cory Daniel Schuyler, 556 P.3d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “”) with RCW 7.105.315(1) (“When issuing an order after notice to the respondent and a hearing, the court may either grant relief for a fixed period of time or enter a 8 Schuyler’s argument could also be read as challenging the DVPO’s original expiration date of 2099.”
John Loop, V. Lisa Loop (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “While a protection order issued pursuant to RCW 7.105.315 that restrains a parent from contacting their child is restricted to “a fixed period not to exceed one year,” that “limitation is not applicable to orders for protection issued under chapter 26.”
Isabelle Latour, V. Sean Kuhlmeyer (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Here, the trial court’s 20-year domestic violence protection order, in pertinent part, set forth that Kuhlmeyer is restrained from communicating with or contacting the minor child except as expressly provided in the parenting plan.”
Jamie Ann Sullivan, V. Cory Daniel Schuyler (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “”) with RCW 7.105.315(1) (“When issuing an order after notice to the respondent and a hearing, the court may either grant relief for a fixed period of time or enter a 8 Schuyler’s argument could also be read as challenging the DVPO’s original expiration date of 2099.”
Aiden Asbach v. Adam Couto (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “He emphasizes that he stipulated to a renewal of the DVPO for a period of one year, and RCW 7.105.315(2) limits a protection order that restrains the respondent from contacting minor children to one year.”
Aiden Asbach v. Adam Couto (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “He emphasizes that he stipulated to a renewal of the DVPO for a period of one year, and RCW 7.105.315(2) limits a protection order that restrains the respondent from contacting minor children to one year.”
Christina Bandaragoda Norton, Resp V. Sanjaya Sriyanga Bandaragoda, App (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “RCW 7.105.315(2)(a). Under RCW 7.105.225(1)(a), a trial court must issue a DVPO if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that “the petitioner has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.105.315(1) — 2 cases
Jamie Ann Sullivan v. Cory Daniel Schuyler, 556 P.3d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “”) with RCW 7.105.315(1) (“When issuing an order after notice to the respondent and a hearing, the court may either grant relief for a fixed period of time or enter a 8 Schuyler’s argument could also be read as challenging the DVPO’s original expiration date of 2099.”
Jamie Ann Sullivan, V. Cory Daniel Schuyler (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “”) with RCW 7.105.315(1) (“When issuing an order after notice to the respondent and a hearing, the court may either grant relief for a fixed period of time or enter a 8 Schuyler’s argument could also be read as challenging the DVPO’s original expiration date of 2099.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.105.315(2) — 2 cases
Aiden Asbach v. Adam Couto (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “He emphasizes that he stipulated to a renewal of the DVPO for a period of one year, and RCW 7.105.315(2) limits a protection order that restrains the respondent from contacting minor children to one year.”
Aiden Asbach v. Adam Couto (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “He emphasizes that he stipulated to a renewal of the DVPO for a period of one year, and RCW 7.105.315(2) limits a protection order that restrains the respondent from contacting minor children to one year.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.105.315(2)(a) — 3 cases
John Loop, V. Lisa Loop (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “While a protection order issued pursuant to RCW 7.105.315 that restrains a parent from contacting their child is restricted to “a fixed period not to exceed one year,” that “limitation is not applicable to orders for protection issued under chapter 26.”
Isabelle Latour, V. Sean Kuhlmeyer (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Here, the trial court’s 20-year domestic violence protection order, in pertinent part, set forth that Kuhlmeyer is restrained from communicating with or contacting the minor child except as expressly provided in the parenting plan.”
Christina Bandaragoda Norton, Resp V. Sanjaya Sriyanga Bandaragoda, App (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “RCW 7.105.315(2)(a). Under RCW 7.105.225(1)(a), a trial court must issue a DVPO if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that “the petitioner has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.