In the Matter of the Domestic Violence Protection Order for: Hannah Camille Henning

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of the Domestic Violence
Protection Order for
HANNAH CAMILLE HENNING.
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 40392-1-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — Hannah Henning appeals the denial of their1 petition
for a domestic violence protection order (DVPO). Because trial courts, not appellate
courts, weigh the credibility of evidence and because the trial court here found that
Hannah had not proved their claims of domestic violence, we affirm.
FACTS
Hannah Henning, a young adult, sought a DVPO against their mother, Diane
Henning. In their petition, Hannah2 chronicled years of physical and emotional conflict
with their mother. In addition, Hannah attached copies of messages reflecting Diane’s
anger about Hannah refusing to communicate with her.
1 Hannah uses they/them pronouns. In their petition and during the DVPO
hearing, Hannah referred to themself in the first person, and, for this reason, the trial
court may have failed to understand Hannah’s pronoun preference. In addition, Hannah’s
parents referred to Hannah as “she.” We encourage trial courts to ask a person their
pronoun preference and adhere to the person’s preference.
2 Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them by their first
names. We mean no disrespect.
FILED
JULY 29, 2025
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 40392-1-III
In re DVPO for Hannah Henning
2
At the DVPO hearing, Diane did not respond to the serious allegations in
Hannah’s petition, said she only wanted the best for Hannah, explained she had respected
Hannah’s wishes for the past several months that she have no contact with them, and
described her most recent interactions. Those interactions reflected a caring attitude
toward Hannah, including a concern for their safety. At the end of the hearing, the trial
court entered a finding that a preponderance of the evidence did not support issuing any
type of protection order.
Hannah appeals to this court.
ANALYSIS
DVPO
Hannah argues the trial court erred by refusing to issue a DVPO to protect her
against their mother. We disagree.
A court shall issue a DVPO if it finds by the preponderance of the evidence
that the petitioner has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent.
RCW 7.105.225(1)(a). “Domestic violence” is “[p]hysical harm, bodily injury, assault,
or the infliction of fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault [or] coercive control
. . . of one family or household member by another family or household member.”
Former RCW 7.105.010(9)(b) (2022). Here, the trial court found that Hannah had not
proved they had been subjected to domestic violence.

No. 40392-1-III
In re DVPO for Hannah Henning
3
We review a trial court’s decision to deny a DVPO for abuse of discretion. Graser
v. Olsen, 28 Wn. App. 2d 933, 940, 542 P.3d 1013 (2023). A trial court abuses its
discretion when its ruling is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or
reasons. Id. A decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside the range of acceptable
choices, given the facts and applicable legal standard; it is based on untenable grounds if
the factual findings are unsupported by the record; it is based on untenable reasons if it is
based on an incorrect standard or the facts do not meet the requirements of the correct
standard. Id. We will not find abuse of discretion unless no reasonable person would
take the view adopted by the trial court. Id.
“When an appellant contends that findings of fact do not support the trial court’s
conclusions, we limit our review to determining whether substantial evidence supports
the findings and, if so, whether those findings support the conclusions of law.
‘Substantial evidence’ is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person
that the finding is true. This court defers to the trier of fact on the persuasiveness of the
evidence, witness credibility, and conflicting testimony.” Id. at 941-42 (citations
omitted).
Here, Diane’s comments during the DVPO hearing are inconsistent with the
hurtful, uncaring mother described in Hannah’s petition. In addition, even though some
of the text messages show Diane’s anger about Hannah’s decision to not have contact

No. 40392-1-111
In re DVPO for Hannah Henning
with her and other family members, they also show concern about Hannah's safety.
Substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Diane did not commit domestic
violence against Hannah.
Affirmed.
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.
l,._,.\bC-,... ~ \!>-....... ...1, L~
Lawrence-Berrey, C.J. 	~ 	~
WE CONCUR:
~4,.:r.Fearing, J. 	Cooney, J.
4