Shantel Schrag v. Matthew Schrag ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         FILED
    OCTOBER 29, 2024
    In the Office of the Clerk of Court
    WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DIVISION THREE
    SHANTEL SCHRAG,                               )
    )         No. 39940-1-III
    Petitioner,              )
    )
    v.                                     )
    )
    MATTHEW SCHRAG,                               )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    )
    Respondent.              )
    STAAB, A.C.J. — Shantel Schrag appeals a sexual assault protection order (SAPO)
    restraining her from contact with her 11-year-old daughter, E.S. Shantel1 proffers several
    reasons for overturning the SAPO. We find two dispositive: (1) the petition does not
    allege she committed the sexual assault against E.S. as required by RCW 7.105.100(1)(b),
    and (2) the court’s sexual assault finding is not supported by substantial evidence. We
    therefore reverse without need to address Shantel’s remaining arguments.
    BACKGROUND
    Shantel and Matthew Schrag are the separated parents of 11-year-old E.S. Under
    the parties’ parenting plan, E.S. generally lives with Shantel during the school year and is
    1
    Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them by their first
    names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.
    No. 39940-1-III
    In re: Schrag v. Schrag
    with Matthew over the summer. Shantel is also the mother of another child, O.C., who
    was 17 years old at the time the litigation in this case commenced. O.C. occasionally
    lived with Shantel and E.S.
    In 2023, Matthew filed a petition in the Lincoln County Superior Court for a
    SAPO on behalf of E.S. against Shantel.2 In his petition, Matthew alleged Shantel should
    be restrained from contact with E.S. due to “severe emotional, mental and physical sexual
    abuse.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 4. He attached a letter to his petition explaining the
    reasons for his request.
    Matthew’s letter stated E.S. had reported being sexually abused by O.C. since
    2017. E.S. told Matthew she had informed Shantel about the abuse, but Shantel was
    dismissive. According to Matthew, Shantel continued to leave E.S. alone with O.C.,
    despite E.S.’s allegations. Matthew claimed that law enforcement told him that they had
    developed probable cause to charge O.C. and that O.C. was being referred for
    prosecution. Matthew provided no information suggesting Shantel was under criminal
    investigation.
    Several people filed responsive declarations on behalf of Shantel denying
    Matthew’s allegations. According to Shantel, she has “been proactive about getting
    2
    Matthew also filed another petition for a SAPO on behalf of E.S. against O.C.
    That SAPO is the subject of a separate appeal.
    2
    No. 39940-1-III
    In re: Schrag v. Schrag
    [E.S.] treatment and help.” CP at 42. In addition, Shantel stated O.C. had decided to live
    with her father and did not want to be in the same household as E.S.
    The court held a hearing on Matthew’s petition, where it heard argument from
    counsel.3 At the close of the hearing, the court ruled it would enter a one-year SAPO
    restraining Shantel from contact with her daughter outside of two weekly visits supervised
    by E.S.’s paternal grandmother.4 The court explained it was issuing the SAPO because of
    evidence that Shantel was “not protecting” E.S. Rep. of Proc. at 26. The court’s written
    order was issued on a standard SAPO form. On the form, the court checked boxes stating
    it was issuing the SAPO based on the findings that Shantel “subjected [E.S.] to
    nonconsensual sexual conduct or nonconsensual sexual penetration” and that Shantel
    “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [E.S.].” CP at 94-95.
    Shantel timely appeals. CP at 104.
    ANALYSIS
    We review a trial court’s decision to grant a protection order for abuse of
    discretion. Rodriguez v. Zavala, 
    188 Wn.2d 586
    , 590, 
    398 P.3d 1071
     (2017). Discretion
    is abused if the trial court’s decision is grounded in unsupported facts or legal error.
    State v. Rohrich, 
    149 Wn.2d 647
    , 654, 
    71 P.3d 638
     (2003).
    3
    The court did not take testimony.
    4
    The court also stated it would enter a SAPO restraining O.C. from contact with
    E.S.
    3
    No. 39940-1-III
    In re: Schrag v. Schrag
    “A parent may petition for [a SAPO] on behalf of . . . [a] minor child.” RCW
    7.105.100(b)(ii). But the petition “must allege the existence of nonconsensual sexual
    conduct or nonconsensual sexual penetration that was committed against the petitioner by
    the respondent.” RCW 7.105.100(1)(b) (emphasis added). In addition, to issue a SAPO,
    the trial court must find that the party to be protected has been “subjected to
    nonconsensual sexual conduct or nonconsensual sexual penetration by the respondent.”
    RCW 7.105.225(1)(b) (emphasis added).
    Matthew’s petition on behalf of E.S. did not allege Shantel committed
    “nonconsensual sexual conduct or nonconsensual sexual penetration” as required by
    RCW 7.105.100(1)(b). Rather, he alleged Shantel showed “unwillingness to protect
    E.S.;” “justified” O.C.’s sexual abuse; and engaged in “mental abuse” of E.S. CP at 15,
    7. These allegations are concerning. But they are not sufficient to qualify for a SAPO
    under RCW 7.105.100(1)(b).
    Nor was the trial court presented with sufficient facts to conclude Shantel had
    “subjected” E.S. to nonconsensual sexual conduct or nonconsensual sexual penetration as
    required by RCW 7.105.225(1)(b). The verb “subject” means “to cause to undergo or
    4
    No. 39940-1-III
    In re: Schrag v. Schrag
    submit to.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 2275 (1993).5 There
    is no evidence in the record that Shantel caused O.C. to sexually abuse E.S. As
    previously noted, Matthew’s allegations were that Shantel failed to protect E.S. from
    O.C.’s abuse. This is insufficient to justify a SAPO under RCW 7.105.225(1)(b).
    The allegations in Matthew’s petition and the evidence presented to the court were
    insufficient to justify a SAPO against Shantel. The trial court therefore abused its
    discretion in issuing the order.
    Reversed.
    A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
    Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
    2.06.040.
    _________________________________
    Staab, A.C.J.
    WE CONCUR:
    _________________________________
    Pennell, J.
    _________________________________
    Cooney, J.
    5
    Because the applicable statute does not define the term “subjected,” we may
    consult a dictionary definition. See State v. Mitchell, 
    169 Wn.2d 437
    , 444, 
    237 P.3d 282
    (2010).
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 39940-1

Filed Date: 10/29/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/29/2024