In re Marriage of Fischer
Washington Court of Appeals
2009 WL 2469282 (2009)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 2006, Karen Fischer (plaintiff) filed for divorce from Bruce Fischer (defendant) after 14 years of marriage. Karen also obtained a restraining order against Bruce that prohibited him from contacting Karen or their two children. The trial court held a hearing on the divorce action, during which the issues of child custody and visitation rights were litigated. Karen testified that Bruce had verbally abused her throughout the marriage and had kept her isolated from friends and family. Karen also testified that Bruce had frequently shoved her and at one point had grabbed her and threatened to kill her. Bruce testified that Karen had committed violent acts against him and that the threatening incident that Karen had testified to had never happened. Following the hearing, the trial court found that Bruce had committed acts of domestic violence against Karen. The trial court then ordered a parenting plan. The plan required that all of Bruce’s visits with the children be supervised, granted Karen sole decision-making authority concerning the children, and required Bruce to participate in a domestic-violence treatment program. Bruce appealed on the ground that the evidence introduced did not support the trial court’s finding that Bruce had committed acts of domestic violence. Bruce also appealed on the ground that the parenting plan imposed restrictions without addressing any relevant identified harm.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hunt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.