Reporter David Cortinas/La Voz
SPOKANE, WA. – Washington DVPO appeal involving son DOMINIC and Oscar Curiel former romantic partner and father of the underage son we will call him (DOMINIC) the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division III, reviewed an appeal by Marcelina Torres challenging a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) issued after a hearing to protect her former romantic partner Oscar Curiel and his 14-year-old son, (DOMINIC), from Torres.
The court affirmed the DVPO as to DOMINIC based on substantial evidence of domestic violence and declined to review a new “reasonable parental discipline” argument not raised below. It reminded the trial court to articulate specific findings supporting inclusion of Curiel in the order.
Parties and Procedural Background
Petitioner Oscar Curiel (on behalf of himself and DOMINIC) vs the Respondent/Appellant: Marcelina Torres (DOMINIC’s mother and Curiel’s former romantic partner).
In March 2025, Curiel petitioned for a DVPO for himself and DOMINIC against Torres. Trial court outcome: After hearing, the court found by a preponderance of evidence that Torres engaged in domestic violence and issued a one-year protection order for Curiel and DOMINIC.
Key Allegations and Incidents
Curiel claims that on March 6, 2025, incident happened when DOMINIC stated Torres yelled at him to leave, then stood in his bedroom doorway, blocking him for about 15 minutes.
When he moved toward the door, Torres pushed him; DOMINIC pushed back and hit his head on the wall. Torres then blocked the front door; DOMINIC exited through the back, at the side gate, Torres pushed him and slammed the gate on his hand; DOMINIC called his father and left with him.
Earlier incidents described by DOMOMIC in October 2021: After a dog mess, DOMINIC reported Torres hit him with an open hand, struck him with a metal fly swatter until it broke, dragged him by the hair into a bathroom to make him clean, and threatened further hitting if he did not open the door.
In November 2024: DOMINIC reported Torres called him names; when told to stop, she closed her fist and tried to punch him. He grabbed her wrist to protect himself. bed andied to leave, she pushed him from the door, tried to punch again, spat in his face, continued name-calling, took his bed, and made him sleep on the floor. DOMINIC said he did not feel safe; alleged Torres left him alone almost daily for years, spoke negatively about his father, threatened to put his father in jail, blamed him for things not his fault, and “consistently made suicidal comments” during arguments.
Torres’s response saying of the incident and denied pushing, shoving, or physically restraining DOMINIC; denied physical or verbal abuse and making suicide threats. Torres also highlighted inconsistencies between DOMINIC’s declaration and police statement (e.g., whether he reported physical restraint or verbal abuse, and which push led to his head injury).
Torres claimed the DVPO was retaliatory after a financial judgment in her favor was affirmed. Declarations from Sergio Torres (her brother) and Romana Torres (her mother) accused Curiel of posing a threat to JCT.
Trial Court Proceedings
The court found DOMINIC credible and placed significant weight on his declaration, focusing on the March 6 incident and noting a pattern of abuse over the years. The judge decision issued a one-year protection order for both former lover Curiel and son DOMINIC.
Motion for reconsideration by Torres argued
Including Curiel without specific findings was error. Abuse of discretion in naming DOMINIC as protected: no specific act identified, contrary testimony discounted, and reasonable parental discipline defense ignored.
First Amendment infringement by treating social media posts as coercion without evidence DOMINIC saw them. The trial court denied reconsideration.
Issues on Appeal and Standards
Three Issues raised: (1) Lack of substantial evidence supporting domestic violence findings; (2) Failure to analyze reasonableness of alleged physical discipline; (3) Failure to articulate a basis for including Curiel.
Standard of review: Abuse of discretion in granting/denying protection orders (Rodriguez versus Zavala). Discretion is abused if manifestly unreasonable, based on untenable grounds, or exercised for untenable reasons (Meyer v. Stowe, Indis.). Findings must be supported by substantial evidence and support conclusions of law (Snyder v. Haynes).
Appellate courts defer to the trial court on credibility, persuasiveness, and conflicts in testimony. Applicable law: DVPO requires alleging domestic violence by an intimate partner or family/household member.
Domestic violence includes physical harm, bodily injury, assault, infliction of fear of harm, nonconsensual sexual conduct or penetration, coercive control, unlawful harassment, or stalking. A petitioner may request relief on behalf of family/household members.
Appellate Analysis and Holdings
Substantial evidence of domestic violence was found and the trial court emphasized the March 6 incident: blocking DOMINIC’s exit, pushing him into a doorframe causing him to hit his head and fall (headache), blocking the front door, pushing him at the side gate, and slamming the gate on his hand.
While DOMINIC’S statement and declaration differed on which push caused the head injury, credibility determinations rest with the trial court. The record also included earlier instances (October 2021 physical strikes and hair-pulling; November 2024 attempted punches and spitting).
The Court in Conclusion said that substantial evidence supports findings of physical harm; no abuse of discretion in granting protection for her son DOMINIC.
Reasonableness of parental discipline (RCW 9A.16.100): Declined to review under RAP (Rules of Appellate Procedure) 2.5(a) because the argument was not raised before the DVPO ruling and surfaced only on reconsideration. CR (Civil Rule) 59 does not permit new legal theories post-adverse decision (Wilcox versus Lexington Eye Institute).
Argument that courts must apply the “proper law” under RCW 7.105.1005 even if not briefed was rejected; the statute bars dismissing/denying for seeking the wrong type of protection order, not obligating courts to consider new arguments on appeal.
Including Torres former romantic partner Curiel as a protected person: The trial court had broad discretion to restrain contact with members of the petitioner’s household under RCW 7.105.310(1)(b), and “petitioner” includes any named petitioner or person on whose behalf the petition is brought (RCW 7.105.010(29)).
However, the court failed to articulate findings supporting Curiel. In bench trials, specific findings of fact and separate conclusions of law are required; findings must indicate the factual basis for conclusions (Reed D.L.T. Labelle, 107). Written findings may be supplemented by oral rulings, but neither the written order nor the oral decision explained inclusion of Curiel. Remedy: Remand for the trial court to enter relevant findings as to Curiel.
Claiming Attorney Fees
Curiel’s request for reasonable attorney fees under RAP 18.1 and RCW 7.105.310(1)(j) was denied in the court’s discretion because Torres successfully challenged the absence of findings regarding Curiel’s inclusion.
Torres’s request for fees under RCW 4.84.185 (arguing the ruling was clearly unlawful and Curiel’s arguments frivolous) was denied; the court found the petitioners’ arguments were not frivolous.
Final Disposition and Panel
The Court affirmed: Domestic violence protection order granted in favor of son DOMINIC. Remanded: For specific findings regarding inclusion of Curiel as a protected person.
What is to be coming in the next steps on remand, the court must enter the relevant findings supporting any inclusion of Torres’ former romantic partner and father of the son Oscar Curiel in the protection order.
Investigative Reporter David Cortinas has been reporting for La Voz Hispanic Newspaper since October 1995 and has received numerous awards in his investigative reports and recognized for his work as a Publisher and CO-CEO with his wife Martha Cortinas. Contact information is email; lavoz@bmi.net or telephone (509)539-2753 – Bi-Lingual Website: www.lavozhispanicnews.com
