Can Protection Orders Be Mutually Entered in Washington

Understanding Cross-Petitions and Mirror Orders in Civil Protection Cases

In Washington, civil protection orders are powerful legal tools designed to prevent harm and protect individuals from domestic violence, harassment, stalking, or abuse. However, in some cases, both parties accuse each other of harmful conduct. This raises a critical question: can a court issue protection orders against both individuals in the same case?

The short answer is yes—but mutual or “mirror” protection orders are not entered automatically. Washington law imposes strict requirements to prevent misuse of the system and to ensure that each case is fairly and independently evaluated. This article explains when courts in Washington may enter mutual protection orders, how cross-petitions are handled, and what legal standards apply.

Under Washington’s Civil Protection Order Act (RCW 7.105), courts cannot issue mutual protection orders based solely on one petition. Instead, both parties must file their own separate petitions for protection. Each petition must be supported by specific allegations and evidence. The court is then required to evaluate the merits of each petition individually, holding hearings as necessary, and issuing factual findings that justify the issuance of an order against each party.

This approach reflects a strong public policy: the court must not assume both parties are equally at fault simply because each accuses the other. Mutual protection orders are disfavored unless there is clear evidence that both individuals engaged in conduct warranting judicial protection. Courts are particularly cautious in domestic violence cases, where mutual orders could inadvertently penalize the true victim or chill the reporting of abuse.

How Courts Evaluate Cross-Petitions

When both parties file protection order petitions against one another, the court will typically schedule a combined or back-to-back hearing. During this process, the court must examine the facts of each case independently, applying the same evidentiary standards to both petitions. Each party must demonstrate that the other has engaged in behavior that poses a danger of harm, intimidation, or harassment, and that a protection order is necessary to prevent future harm.

Judges are careful to assess whether the cross-petition is genuinely supported by evidence or merely a reactionary or retaliatory measure. The court may deny one petition and grant the other, or, if appropriate, grant both—but only with distinct findings that justify each order on its own merits. The issuance of mutual orders should never be a default resolution to a contested hearing.

Retaliatory Petitions and Defensive Strategies

In some cases, a respondent facing a valid protection order may file a counter-petition as a strategic move, either to discredit the petitioner, gain leverage in family law proceedings, or appear as the more cooperative party. Washington courts are familiar with this tactic and will look closely at the timeline, content, and credibility of each petition. If there is a clear imbalance in evidence, or if one petition appears to be motivated by retaliation rather than genuine fear or harm, courts are likely to reject the counter-claim.

Individuals facing a retaliatory cross-petition should take it seriously, even if they believe it is baseless. Failing to appear or respond may result in an unopposed order being entered against them. With proper documentation, witness statements, and representation, a respondent can demonstrate that the cross-petition lacks merit and that any alleged conduct was defensive, lawful, or otherwise justified.

Consequences of a Mutual Protection Order

Being subject to a mutual protection order—whether as a result of a valid claim or a contested cross-petition—can have serious consequences. Both parties may be prohibited from contacting one another through any means, including in person, over the phone, online, or through third parties. These restrictions can affect living arrangements, co-parenting responsibilities, and employment or housing if the parties share close proximity.

In many cases, a protection order also results in the loss of firearm rights, even in purely civil matters. Violating any term of a protection order, even unintentionally, may result in criminal charges. For parents involved in custody or visitation disputes, a protection order may also factor into residential time decisions and parenting plan modifications.

Protection order cases involving mutual accusations are highly fact-sensitive and procedurally complex. Each party must meet a specific legal burden, and courts are prohibited from issuing mutual orders simply to balance the scales or de-escalate a volatile situation. An experienced attorney can help ensure that your narrative is clearly presented, your evidence is properly admitted, and your rights are protected throughout the process.

Whether you are responding to a retaliatory petition, preparing to file your own petition in response to ongoing harassment or abuse, or navigating a contested hearing where cross-allegations are involved, legal counsel can make the difference between a fair result and an order that undermines your safety or legal standing.

Serving Clients in Protection Order Hearings Across Southwest Washington

At the Law Office of Erin Bradley McAleer, we represent individuals on both sides of civil protection order proceedings. Our team has extensive experience with domestic violence orders, anti-harassment orders, stalking petitions, and vulnerable adult protection cases—including those involving complex cross-petitions or mutual allegations. We advocate for our clients with clarity, professionalism, and a deep understanding of Washington’s protection order statutes and court procedures.

If you are involved in a contested protection order matter or anticipate a hearing where both parties are seeking relief, contact our office to discuss your situation. We are committed to helping you assert your rights and move forward with confidence.