Gourley v. Gourley, 145 P.3d 1185 (WA 2006)

One of the parties’ children accused the petitioner of sexual assault, including improper touching of her breasts and vaginal area on multiple occasions. During an interview with Child Protective Services (CPS), the child denied any improper touching, but subsequently stated that the petitioner had cautioned her against disclosing any information about the improper touching. Additionally, in a written declaration, the petitioner had admitted to rubbing aloe vera on the naked body of the child. As a result, the respondent sought and received a domestic violence protection order against the petitioner under Wash. Rev. Code 26.50, prohibiting contact between the petitioner and the respondent and their three children. The petitioner appealed, arguing that, in granting the petition for protection order, the commissioner improperly considered hearsay evidence and violated his due process rights when he refused to allow cross-examination of the child, who made the accusation. The Supreme Court of Washington held that the rules of evidence need not be applied in ex parte protection order proceedings and, therefore, the commissioner did not err when he considered hearsay evidence in issuing the protection order. Furthermore, denial to allow cross-examination of the child did not violate the petitioner’s due process rights, because nothing in the statutory scheme explicitly requires allowing the respondent in a domestic violence protection order proceeding to cross-examine a minor who had accused him of sexual abuse.

Topics

• Domestic and intimate partner violence
• Sexual violence and rape

Geographical location

• North America
• United States
• Washington

Keywords

• sexual assault
• domestic violence
• protection orders
• evidence
• hearsay exemption

Year

• 2006

External URL

• Gourley v. Gourley, 145 P.3d 1185 (WA 2006)

Court

• Washington Supreme Court

Type

• Domestic Case Law

Jurisdiction

• Washington