On March 13, 2026, attorneys representing Melissa Strawn submitted a comprehensive motion asking King County Superior Court to revisit and overturn a prior ruling that revoked her Domestic Violence Protection Order.

The motion highlights how a single forensic evaluator’s methodology significantly shaped the court’s decision—and how delays in the judicial process have left survivors like Strawn exposed while their cases linger unresolved.

Spanning fifteen pages and bolstered by a sworn affidavit, the filing outlines concerns about reliance on legally unsound assessments when determining whether victims qualify for protective orders under state law.

Reframing Treatment

Legal arguments in the motion contend that the court incorrectly treated a forensic evaluation as equivalent to completed domestic violence treatment, a position heavily influenced by Dr. William Singer, a psychologist whose evaluations have drawn increasing attention.

The court had noted in handwritten findings that the person restrained under the order “partially acknowledged responsibility by participating in DV treatment” and was “in compliance and making progress.”

However, the motion points out that no evidence in the case file supports that conclusion. In fact, the restrained individual had only undergone a behavioral assessment—not formal treatment—conducted by Dr. Singer, who recommended “Level 0” status: no treatment needed.

State regulations clarify that assessments serve as a first step before treatment begins, not a substitute for it.

Even more consequential, the Level 0 determination rested largely on the restrained party’s own account, during which he explicitly rejected any involvement in abusive conduct.

As the motion observes: “When an evaluator’s assessment hinges on the person’s denial of abusive behavior rather than documented accountability, that signals a lack of progress, not evidence of it.”

State Oversight Gaps

Additional complications emerged from a separate administrative review by the Department of Social and Health Services, detailed in a sworn statement filed by Strawn’s attorney, Rasham Nassar.

Earlier reporting indicated that on November 6, 2025, DSHS issued a formal warning and classified a complaint against Dr. Singer and his practice, the Northwest Evaluation Center, as “founded.”

Investigators determined that Dr. Singer often overlooked input from victims contained in court filings and downplayed the need for intervention simply because no criminal charges or police reports existed.

Amie Roberts, who supervises DSHS’s Domestic Violence Intervention Treatment Program, noted that such oversight is essential to prevent programs from operating in ways that “endanger those they are meant to protect.”

Under a corrective plan imposed by the agency, Dr. Singer was directed to revise his assessment for this case to align with state standards. When his updated report was requested, he pointed to a specific King County docket sub-number, claiming the revised document had been filed there.

Yet the motion includes documentation showing that this sub-number does not match any official docket entry—effectively making it an elusive or “ghost” docket item.

The result is a scenario in which a victim’s legal protections were withheld based on an assessment from an evaluator under state supervision, with supporting documentation that remains difficult to locate within the court’s own records.

Broader Patterns in Evaluation Practices

The legal motion argues that the current case closely resembles *Condel v. Condel*, a recent decision by the Division I Court of Appeals. Earlier reporting on February 9 detailed how that appellate panel reversed a King County decision that had previously lifted a protection order. The higher court had identified "significant flaws" in the assessment provided by a local psychologist, Dr. Singer.

In the *Condel* ruling, the judges determined that relying on a "Level 0" evaluation constituted an abuse of discretion and violated the Washington Administrative Code. Dr. Singer had originally justified his recommendation by noting that the respondent denied all domestic violence and had no arrest record. The appellate opinion explicitly stated that treatment recommendations should not be reduced in scope due to the lack of legal charges.

Despite this directly applicable precedent, the court in Strawn’s case appeared to adopt a nearly identical rationale. The motion further contends that the judge made direct errors of law by considering factors that state statutes prohibit, such as the passage of time or the lack of new violations, which are standard expectations for any protection order. The filing also suggests the court used the protected person’s personal circumstances to justify terminating the order.

Systemic Delays

These legal and evaluative issues leave survivors vulnerable, a problem exacerbated by slow judicial action. Strawn’s attorney filed the motion for reconsideration on the tenth-day deadline. However, the court has not issued a ruling more than a month later.

The motion describes a system that relies on questionable evaluations and suffers from procedural delays, placing survivors at risk.

Community Support

To assist with legal costs during this ongoing dispute, a local fundraiser has been created. Individuals can contribute to Melissa Strawn’s effort to secure justice by visiting her GoFundMe page at: https://www.gofundme.com/f/melissastrawn