Court of Appeals Rebukes Flawed DV Evaluation, Reinstates Protection Order in King County Case

Case Studies · By Gale McArthur · 2026-02-15 · 8 min read

Division I reversed a King County Superior Court order that vacated a DVPO based on a Level 0 evaluation by Dr. William Singer of Northwest Evaluation Center — finding the evaluation was legally improper and unsupported by substantial evidence.

Court of Appeals Rebukes Flawed DV Evaluation, Reinstates Protection Order in King County Case

Condel v. Condel, No. 86967-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. Div. I, Feb. 9, 2026) (unpublished)

A Washington State Court of Appeals decision is sending a clear message to trial courts: private, unregulated domestic violence evaluations cannot override statutory protections or established findings of abuse.

In a sharp reversal, Division I of the Court of Appeals overturned a King County Superior Court ruling that had vacated a domestic violence protection order (DVPO), citing legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and improper reliance on a deeply flawed evaluation conducted by Dr. William Singer of the Northwest Evaluation Center.

The decision underscores a growing concern in Washington's family court system: the misuse of private expert evaluations to circumvent court-ordered domestic violence intervention requirements.

The Core Issue: When "Expert Opinion" Overrides Law

At the center of the case was a private domestic violence assessment conducted by Dr. Singer. The respondent, Frank "Garrett" Condel, relied heavily on this evaluation to argue that he no longer posed a risk and that the protection order protecting his former wife Amina should be lifted.

Dr. Singer's conclusions were striking:

The respondent was assessed at "Level 0" — the lowest possible risk level
The report concluded there were "no abusive behaviors to target"
It recommended individual therapy instead of certified domestic violence treatment

But the appellate court found that reliance on this evaluation was not just questionable — it was legally improper.

"Significant Flaws" Identified by the Court

The Court of Appeals identified multiple, compounding failures in the evaluation that undermined its reliability.

1. Reliance on Self-Reporting Despite Documented Abuse

The evaluator acknowledged that the respondent "denies all DV" — yet accepted those denials at face value.

In domestic violence risk assessment, denial is not neutral evidence — it is a known risk factor. Best practices require corroboration, not blind reliance.

2. Improper Use of Lack of Criminal Charges

The appellate court directly criticized the evaluator's reasoning that the respondent's risk level was low because there were no arrests or charges.

The court rejected this outright, citing Washington Administrative Code:

> "The recommended level of treatment must not be diminished by factors such as the absence of legal charges." — WAC 388-60B-0400

This is a critical point. Domestic violence is vastly underreported and under-prosecuted. Using lack of charges as a proxy for safety is not just flawed — it is explicitly prohibited by state regulation.

3. Disregard for Court-Ordered Treatment

The original 2022 DVPO required:

Certified domestic violence perpetrator treatment under RCW 26.50.150
Participation in a state-certified DV Dads parenting program

Yet the evaluator recommended alternative therapy and did not account for the existing court order. The appellate record shows the respondent used this evaluation to avoid compliance with mandated treatment.

The court made clear: private recommendations do not override judicial orders.

4. Internal Contradictions Within the Report

Even within the evaluation itself, inconsistencies were evident. The report stated the respondent may lack awareness of "negativity or hostility" and recommended therapy to address triggers, anger, and communication issues — yet simultaneously concluded that no abusive behaviors existed and no DV treatment was needed.

These contradictions undermine the report's credibility and raise serious questions about its methodology.

5. Conflict with Established Judicial Findings

Perhaps most critically, the evaluation's conclusions directly contradicted prior court findings. The appellate court had already affirmed in Condel v. Condel, No. 84310-9-I (July 2023):

A documented history of domestic violence "spanning several years"
A credible ongoing threat to Amina and the children
That the incidents were "certainly not de minimis or isolated"

An expert opinion that disregards adjudicated facts is not simply weak — it is legally incompatible with the record.

The Trial Court's Error: A Dangerous Precedent

The Superior Court accepted the evaluation and concluded that the respondent had made a "good faith effort" and demonstrated a "substantial change in circumstances."

But the Court of Appeals found this reasoning fundamentally flawed.

Under RCW 7.105.405, the law is clear. The respondent must prove both:

1. A substantial change in circumstances, AND 2. That they will not resume acts of domestic violence

The trial court improperly collapsed these into one, relying on subjective impressions rather than statutory criteria.

The appellate court reversed, holding that:

The findings were not supported by substantial evidence
The law was misapplied
The decision constituted an abuse of discretion

Why This Case Matters Beyond One Family

This ruling highlights a systemic issue in Washington's family courts.

Private Evaluations as Loopholes

When unregulated or flawed evaluations are given weight:

Court-ordered treatment can be bypassed
Accountability is replaced with narrative
Victim protections are weakened

The Risk to Survivors

The stakes are not theoretical. When courts rely on flawed evaluations:

Protection orders may be lifted prematurely
Patterns of abuse may be minimized
Survivors are forced to re-litigate established harm — often at enormous personal and financial cost

A Broader Accountability Question

This decision comes amid increasing scrutiny of domestic violence evaluators in Washington. Recent findings by the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) have raised concerns about failure to meet state standards and improper methodology in DV assessments.

The Court of Appeals decision reinforces that clinical opinions must align with statutory law, regulatory standards, and factual records — or they cannot be relied upon.

Bottom Line

This case is not just about one evaluation. It is about the integrity of the system.

When courts defer to flawed expert opinions over statutory requirements, established findings, and evidence-based standards, the result is not just legal error — it is a failure of protection.

The Court of Appeals made one thing clear:

> Domestic violence protections cannot be undone by unsupported opinions, no matter who writes them.

Court of Appeals Rebukes Flawed DV Evaluation, Reinstates Protection Order in King County Case