FILED
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
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
LINDSEY M. PURDY- BOLLAND, )
) No. 39184-1-III
Respondent, )
)
v. ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION
) TO PUBLISH AND
DANIEL PATRICK GRAHAM, ) AMENDING OPINION
)
Appellant. )
THE COURT has considered the appellant’s motion to publish the court’s opinion of
August 3, 2023, and the record and file herein, and is of the opinion the motion should be
granted. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED, the motion to publish is granted. The court also received, from a third
party, a motion to publish the decision. That motion is observably granted also.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion filed by the court on August 3, 2023, shall
be modified on page 1 to designate it is a published opinion and on page 13 by deletion of the
following language:
A majority of the panel has determined that 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.
and
On page 4, second paragraph from the bottom, first line change “laying” to
“lying.”
PANEL: Judges Staab, Fearing, Siddoway
FOR THE COURT:
GEORGE B. FEARING, Chief Judge
FILED
AUGUST 3, 2023
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
LINDSEY M. PURDY- BOLLAND, )
) No. 39184-1-III
Respondent, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
DANIEL PATRICK GRAHAM, )
)
Appellant. )
STAAB, J. — At the request of Lindsey Purdy-Bolland, the trial court entered an
order precluding contact between Daniel Graham and his young daughter because of the
father’s photographing the daughter when the daughter was naked and being naked
himself in some images. Purdy-Bolland is the mother of Graham’s daughter. The trial
court concluded that Graham was grooming the daughter for sexual abuse and that he
caused traumatic brain injury. We reverse because the trial court’s finding of physical
abuse is not supported by substantial evidence.
FACTS
Lindsey Purdy-Bolland and Daniel Graham have a daughter together. The parties
refer to the daughter as “M.” We generally refer to the daughter as “the daughter.”
Purdy-Bolland and Graham have never been married. When the daughter was two years
old, Graham had a son, we reference as “Graham's son,” with another woman, Allison No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
Beaty. The daughter was 7 years old in November 2021. By 2021, Daniel Graham
maintained a relationship with a third woman, Crystal Hallen.
Daniel Graham took photographs and videos of his being naked, Crystal Hallen
being naked, the daughter being naked, and Graham’s son being naked. Some of the
images show Graham naked with one or more of his children. Some of the photos show
the daughter naked with other children. The record contains thirteen of the photographs
submitted by Lindsey Purdy-Bolland as support for her petition for a protection order.
These photographs were undated, but we know that two of them—identified as the eighth
and ninth images below—were taken between 2020 and 2022.
The first, second, and third pictures appear to be from the same time period and
must be several years old because the daughter is a toddler. The three pictures depict
Daniel Graham and his daughter, both of whom are naked, in a bathroom. The first
picture shows Daniel Graham taking a photograph of himself in the mirror while holding
the daughter. The second photograph shows Daniel Graham taking a picture of himself
standing over the daughter in the bathtub. Graham’s genitals are visible but do not touch
the daughter’s body. On this bathing occasion, Graham took four pictures of the daughter
and himself, but Lindsey Purdy-Bolland submitted only one image with her petition. See
CP 11 and 153. The third picture shows the daughter in the bathtub holding a bath toy
and Daniel Graham sitting next to her.
The fourth picture portrays a young girl sitting on a kitchen counter. She is
wearing a dress and has her hand between her legs. According to Daniel Graham, the girl
2
No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
sitting on a counter in picture 4 is a friend’s daughter. Graham took the photo when
remodeling the friend’s residence. Graham has been friends with the girl’s father for
fifteen years, her parents were home when he took the photograph, and the parents had no
concerns about the picture when he showed the parents the image. He sent the photo to
his girlfriend, Crystal, to update her on events of the day. Graham did not pose the girl
and does not know why she sat on the counter. He was not aware of the location of the
hand until Lindsey Purdy-Bolland criticized the hand’s placement.
The fifth and sixth photographs depict young children naked in the bathtub. In
one of Daniel Graham’s declarations, he presented context for some of the photographs
submitted by Lindsey Purdy-Bolland. Graham described photograph five:
One photo submitted is of [the daughter] and her cousin . . . in the
bathtub at my Mom’s house where . . . , her brother and parents also live. I
was in and out of the bathroom to check on them as one of the parents does
often. I don’t remember taking this photo but assume I just thought it was
cute that they were playing and having fun so snapped a photo. I’ve never
once been in the bathtub with my nieces or nephew or any other child other
than my own. My Mom and sister ([the cousin’s] mom) were home while
the girls were bathing. Once again [the cousin’s] parents have seen this
photo and have no concerns.
Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 104-05.
The seventh picture depicts Daniel Graham’s foot in the bathtub next to the
daughter, who is naked. The image only shows the adult foot, the leg attached to the
foot, and the daughter’s arm.
According to Daniel Graham, he shared image seven with his current girlfriend,
Crystal Hallen, during a text conversation. Graham had intended to enter the bathtub to
3
No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
bathe himself. Graham wrote to Hallen “She [the daughter] got in with me instead . . . .
Butt head . . . . Haha.” CP at 150. Hallen replied “Haha that’s cute,” and “She wanted to
come in with you instead of her own bath.” CP at 103-04, at 150. Graham responded
“She loves coming with me but I tell her she can’t . . . cause her mom. So we are in our
undies.” CP at 103-04, 150 (alterations in original). Graham did not tell the daughter she
could not bathe with him because her mother did not allow it. Graham texted the
statement and photograph only to Hallen.
Daniel Graham took the eighth and ninth image on the same occasion. The two
photos show the daughter posing naked in the shower while being sprayed with water by
Daniel Graham. According to Graham, he was then placing his son in bed, and went to
and from the shower and the son’s bed. He washed the daughter’s hair so that the hair
was thoroughly washed and rinsed. Graham rinsed the hair with the hand wand and
jokingly sprayed the daughter. The daughter laughed. She asked her father to spray her
face while photographing her. The daughter on other occasions asked to be
photographed. Graham was outside the shower and clothed.
The tenth photograph depicts Daniel Graham and the daughter laying on a couch
or bed. This photograph shows both Graham and the daughter naked from the chest up.
The eleventh image shows Daniel Graham taking a photograph of himself and the
daughter. A smiling Graham and the daughter face the camera. The daughter stands
naked in the bathtub, while Graham is clothed outside of the bathtub. Picture twelve
shows a child, presumably the daughter, sitting naked and alone in the bathtub.
4
No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
The thirteenth photograph depicts Daniel Graham in the bathtub with his daughter
and son. All three are naked. Graham’s genitals are visible but not touching either child.
In July 2019, Lindsey Purdy-Bolland told Daniel Graham to cease bathing naked
with the daughter because of the daughter’s increased age. Graham claims to have
stopped bathing naked with his daughter then, but bathed with her while both wore
bathing suits.
On Sunday October 24, 2021, the daughter returned to her mother’s Kennewick
residence after a visit with father Daniel Graham in Everett. The daughter possessed a
tablet owned by her father. The mother, Lindsey Purdy-Bolland, scrolled through photos
on the tablet and saw naked photos of Graham’s current girlfriend, Crystal Hallen. The
daughter looked over Purdy-Bolland’s shoulder and commented: “‘there are other photos
of Crystal like that on dad’s phone.’” CP at 9.
Lindsey Purdy-Bolland continued to thumb through the photos on Daniel
Graham’s tablet. She saw photos of children, including the daughter and Graham’s son
in the bathtub. On Graham’s tablet, Purdy-Bolland also viewed a video of Graham with
Graham’s son both naked in the bathtub. Graham’s son asked his father why the father
had a hairy penis. Purdy-Bolland deemed the photos and video to be sexual in nature.
Graham denied taking it for a sexual purpose.
Lindsey Purdy-Bolland showed the daughter’s counselor the photographs and
videos on Daniel Graham’s tablet. The counselor reported the photographs and videos to
Child Protective Services (CPS).
5
No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
On October 27, 2021, the Everett Police Department received a CPS referral from
Luis Medina at the Department of Children, Youth, and Families. On November 3, 2021,
the police department assigned Sergeant Steve Brenneman to investigate the report.
During his investigation, Sergeant Steve Brenneman asked Lindsey Purdy-Bolland
if she felt the pictures “were sexual” in nature. On more than one occasion, PurdyBolland responded that “she didn’t know.” CP at 342 (interview transcript). Sergeant
Brenneman requested that Purdy-Bolland deliver Daniel Graham’s tablet to him, but she
refused.
On December 28, 2021, Sergeant Brenneman summarized his investigation, in
part:
When contacted by police, Mrs. Purdy provided a signed statement
and sent 32 images and 2 videos of four children naked in the bath via an
evidence.com link. Some of the images also showed [redacted] nude with
[redacted] who were also naked in or near the bath.
At the start of this investigation, I met with DPA [deputy
prosecuting attorney] Boska and requested that he view the images with me
to determine whether in his opinion they were inappropriate/criminal. Both
DPA Boska and I felt that the images did not rise to the level of criminal
activity. They did not appear to have been taken as a means for sexual
gratification. Two of the photos were concerning due to the angle showing
[redacted] between the legs and behind of a nude [redacted] who appeared
to be exiting the bathtub when he took the selfie style image. However, his
penis was not erect, and it did not seem to be done for sexual purposes.
I met with Mrs. Purdy for an interview on 11-23-21. Mrs. Purdy
provided a recorded statement. When asked if she felt the images were
sexual, she stated that she didn’t know and that was why she reported it. I
contacted the parents of the other two children in the photos. The children
were cousins to [redacted]. Neither mother had concern that the images of
their children were sexual in nature and they stated that they would still
allow [redacted] to watch their children. They said that [redacted] had
already shown them the images, or they were present when they were
6
No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
taken. Both mothers said that [redacted] had sent bath time images to them
documenting that the children were having fun playing together in the bath.
CP at 351. The Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office declined to file
charges against Daniel Graham.
Daniel Graham’s son’s mother, Allison Beaty, learned of the photographs and
videos. Beaty deemed the pictures inappropriate, but did not conclude that Graham
sexually abused Graham’s son. Katherine Kelly, the mother of another child in the
photos, stated that Graham sent her the photographs, she was not concerned about
Graham watching her child, and would continue to allow the child to stay at his
residence. Graham’s sister, Lisa Graham, has a child who was photographed by Graham.
Lisa told police investigators that she knew of the photographs and was probably present
during some of the pictures. Lisa Graham expressed concern about Lindsey PurdyBolland taking pictures of Lisa’s daughter from Graham’s tablet, which photos did not
include the daughter, and show the photos to others. Lisa expressed no concern about the
images or her brother watching her child.
PROCEDURE
On October 28, 2021, before the Everett Police Department concluded its
investigation, Lindsey Purdy-Bolland filed a petition for a domestic violence protection
order, naming Daniel Graham as the respondent. She identified herself and the daughter
as the persons to be protected by the order. When prompted by the petition form to
describe the “most recent act, fear or threat of violence, and why the temporary order
should be entered today without notice to [Graham],” Purdy-Bolland explained:
7
No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
On October 24, 2021, my daughter returned home after visitation
with her father, Daniel Graham. She showed [sic] me the tablet she was
playing with on the drive from Everett to Kennewick. I came across photos
that she had access to on the tablet. They were disturbing and sexual in
nature with my daughter and her half brother posing with Daniel, primarily
in the bath tub. There was a video taken in July 2021 with Daniel and his
son [sic] (5) in the bath tub prompting his son to ask him why “his penis
was hairy.” Another photo depicts Daniel standing naked with my daughter
between his legs in the bath tub.
CP at 5.
The protection order petition form further prompted Lindsey Purdy-Bolland to
answer questions concerning her request for the protection order. We include the
relevant questions (bolded) and Purdy-Bolland’s corresponding answers below.
Describe the past incidents where [the daughter] experienced
violence, where [the daughter] was afraid of injury or where [Graham]
threatened to harm or kill [the daughter]: I have been suspicious of
inappropriate sexual criminal behavior for years. There was a prior CPS
incident reporting that Daniel was sleeping in the same bed with [the
daughter] and girlfriends. In 2019 (June) I emailed Daniel and asked that
he stop bathing with our daughter. He denied it.
Describe any violence or threats toward children: Example of
photos are included.
If you are requesting that the protection order lasts longer than
one year, describe the reasons why: The photos and video found were
from over the course of many years. Odds of reoffending are high.
Without serious and prolonged intervention, [Graham] could continue to
harm my daughter. She has a long road ahead to recovering from the
damage already having occurred.
CP at 5-8.
In a declaration responding to Lindsey Purdy-Bolland’s petition, Daniel Graham
insisted that the photographs caused the daughter no emotional, physical, or mental harm.
8
No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
Graham avowed that he has only ever shared the video and the pictures attached to the
petition “privately with family members.” CP at 20.
On June 22, 2022, the Benton County Superior Court conducted a hearing on
Lindsey Purdy-Bolland’s petition for the domestic violence protection order. On July 6,
2022, the trial court trial court granted the petition when issuing a letter ruling.
The superior court’s ruling noted that the Washington Legislature overhauled the
law on civil protection orders and included new expansive definitions of what constitutes
“domestic violence.” The legislation codified all of the law in chapter RCW 7.105. The
changes became effective on July 1, 2022. Based on the timing of events, the superior
court concluded that the former statutory provisions were applicable. The law defined
“domestic violence” in part as “physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of
fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, sexual assault, or stalking.”
Former RCW 26.50.010(3) (2021).
The trial court wrote in its memorandum decision:
Here, the photos of the naked child [the daughter], taken by
themselves and in light of other very concerning photos of other children in
Respondent’s possession and taken by the Respondent over a long period of
time, show by a preponderance of evidence that there is domestic violence.
The Court finds that the constant photographing of Respondent’s child [the
daughter] naked, encouraging the child to be photographed naked and to
pose naked for photos, and the sharing of those photographs with third
parties constitutes domestic violence because it is physical harm of the
child by the Respondent by way of sexual grooming. Physical harm is not
confined to harm that leaves an external mark; it can be mental and
emotional abuse from a family member to another as well. Children who
are being groomed for sexual activity or gratification by adults seldom
know that what is happening is harmful to them, because the behavior is
9
No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
normalized by the adult doing the grooming and the children lack the
capacity to understand that what is happening is wrong . . . .
No parent would objectively view these images and think that they
are harmless and normal in totality; they are in fact causing physical harm
to this child in the form of trauma to her brain from this attempted
normalization at her sexual exploitation.
CP at 202 (emphasis added).
The trial court’s order precluded Daniel Graham from having contact with his
daughter except for professionally supervised visitation at his expense every other
weekend for up to four hours each weekend.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On appeal, Daniel Graham asserts two principal arguments in favor of vacating the
protection order precluding contact with his daughter. First, the underlying facts show no
physical harm to the daughter and thus did not justify a protection order for domestic
violence. Second, in granting the petition, the trial court violated Graham’s fundamental
right to raise his child how he sees fit. Because we agree with Graham’s first argument,
we do not address the second contention.
Trial courts exercise discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny petitions for
domestic violence protection orders. Juarez v. Juarez, 195 Wn. App. 880, 892, 382 P.3d
13 (2016). Hence, this court reviews such decisions for an abuse of discretion and will
not disturb such an exercise of discretion absent a clear showing of abuse. Rodriguez v.
Zavala, 188 Wn.2d 586, 590, 398 P.3d 1071 (2017); Juarez v. Juarez, 195 Wn. App. 880,
893 (2016). An abuse of discretion exists when a trial court’s exercise of its discretion is
10
No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons. State v. Powell, 126
Wn.2d 244, 258, 893 P.2d 615 (1995). A court’s decision is based on untenable grounds
if the factual findings are unsupported by the record. In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133
Wn.2d 39, 47, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997).
The parties follow the lead of the trial court in litigating this appeal on the basis of
the former definition of “domestic violence” under chapter 26.50 RCW. We do so also.
The former RCW 26.50.010(3) defined domestic violence as:
(a) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of
imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, sexual assault, or stalking
as defined in RCW 9A.46.110 of one intimate partner by another intimate
partner; or (b) physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear
of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, sexual assault, or
stalking as defined in RCW 9A.46.110 of one family or household member
by another family or household member.
(Emphasis added.) The facts supporting a protection order must reasonably relate to
physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the fear of imminent harm. In re Marriage of
Freeman, 169 Wn.2d 664, 674, 239 P.3d 557 (2010).
The Washington Legislature did not define “physical harm” as the term was used
in the former RCW 26.50. Nevertheless, plain language requires no construction. State
v. Wilson, 125 Wn.2d 212, 217, 883 P.2d 320 (1994). When this court interprets
statutory language, it assumes that the legislature means exactly what it says and does not
perform statutory interpretation when the meaning of a statute is unambiguous. City of
Snohomish v. Joslin, 9 Wn. App. 495, 498, 513 P.2d 293 (1973); In re Petition for an
Order for Protection of K.G.T., 16 Wn. App. 2d 787, 791, 483 P.3d 808 (2021). The
11
No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
term physical harm is unambiguous because it has only one meaning: harm inflicted on
one’s physical body.
We proceed to determine if the underlying facts support an ultimate finding of fact
that Daniel Graham committed domestic violence. The trial court entered the protection
order based on findings that Graham groomed his daughter, took photographs for sexual
gratification, and caused traumatic brain injury. Because former RCW 26.50.010(3) only
mentions physical harm and not sexual grooming or gratification, we only analyze
whether the underlying facts show physical harm. Traumatic brain injury would qualify
as physical harm.
The trial court cited only the content of the photographs, their frequency, and their
disbursement as evidence the daughter suffered trauma to her brain. The trial court did
not consider, nor did either party submit, medical records proving the existence of brain
trauma. While the court had access to some of the daughter’s medical records, those
records did not indicate she suffered brain trauma. Neither party retained an expert to
provide an opinion on brain trauma that could result from circumstances similar to those
present here. Thus, we conclude that the facts do not support a finding of physical harm.
We recognize that the Supreme Court, in Rodriguez v. Zavala, 188 Wn.2d 586,
(2017), determined a child’s fear of observing violence against a family member to
constitute physical harm for purposes of the former RCW 26.50.010(3). Nevertheless,
the statute extended to an imminent fear of physical harm, and the child might reasonably
worry that violence to his mother could eventually reach him. More importantly, the
12
No. 39184-1-III,
Purdy-Bolland v. Graham
Supreme Court, in Rodriguez v. Zavala, relied on a wealth of literature that cited studies
that domestic violence in a child’s home, regardless of whether the violence physically
touches the child, impacted the child’s brain development. Neither party cites to any
scientific literature or studies that related traumatic brain injury to be photographed naked
even with one’s parent being naked nearby. The trial court cited no studies or literature.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the trial court and remand for the vacation of the protection order.
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, J.
WE CONCUR:
Siddoway, J.P.T.
Fearing, C.J.
Judge Laurel H. Siddoway was a member of the Court of Appeals at the time argument was held on this matter. She is now serving as a judge pro tempore of the court pursuant to RCW 2.06.150.
13