Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Veliz

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 2013No. 85860-8Published

1DissentJ.M. Johnson, J.

¶32 (dissenting) — The majority errs by unnecessarily limiting the definition of “court-ordered parenting plan” under RCW 9A.40.060(2) to documents created pursuant to chapter 26.09 RCW. I would affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that when RCW 26.50.060 orders contain residential provisions for minor children, they are “court-ordered parenting plants].” Accordingly, a violation of a domestic violence protection order’s residential provisions for children should constitute custodial interference under RCW 9A.40.060(2). To hold otherwise would be contrary to the rules of statutory…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Whatcom County v. City of BellinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  5. State v. EngelWashington Supreme Court · 2009

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API