Jump To

Top Caption Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Andrew M. Bartmann, V. Kathleen A. Flury

Court of Appeals of Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 86971-0

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (738)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

In the Matter of the Domestic Violence No. 86971-0-I
Protection Order for
DIVISION ONE
ANDREW M. BARTMANN,

Respondent, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

and

KATHLEEN A. FLURY,

Appellant.

SMITH, J. — Andrew Bartmann and Kathleen Flury were in a relationship

between January 2022, and early 2024. They share one child. In June 2024,

Bartmann obtained a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) against Flury.

Flury appealed pro se, alleging the trial court erred when it granted Bartmann’s

DVPO because (1) insufficient evidence existed to establish that she posted a

credible threat of violence or harm, (2) insufficient evidence existed to support a

finding that she was the aggressor, and (3) the court failed to consider

Bartmann’s prior abusive behavior. Bartmann did not file a response. Because

Flury failed to provide a sufficient record for review on appeal, we affirm.

FACTS

Andrew Bartmann and Kathleen Flury met and began dating in January

1. In June 2022, Bartmann was arrested for domestic violence after an

observer saw Bartmann and Flury arguing and called law enforcement. Flury
No. 86971-0-I/2

told law enforcement she did not want to seek a domestic violence protection

order (DVPO). At the time, Flury was two months pregnant with Bartmann’s

child.

In September 2023, Flury was arrested for domestic violence against

Bartmann, and their child was taken into protective custody. In response to the

incident, the commissioner in Flury and Bartmann’s Department of Children,

Youth & Families (DCYF) case requested Flury complete a domestic violence

(DV) assessment.

The report stated that Flury described being mentally and physically

abused by Bartmann, beginning in March 2022. It indicated that Flury was the

perpetrator of domestic violence as well. The report noted, “Flury appears to

struggle with emotional regulation, dominates conversations and attempts to

coerce others to get what she wants.” It documented verbal abuse by both Flury

and Bartmann and noted that, “[t]he family has come to the attention of Law

Enforcement due to domestic violence and substance use in three different

states within the first year of their son’s life.” The report concluded by

summarizing Flury’s abusive behaviors, noting Flury “presents with a high degree

of abusive behavioral patterns and cognitive distortions that require treatment

intervention.”

In March 2024, Bartmann moved for a protection order against Flury.1

Flury filed several declarations in response, one of them contending Bartmann

1
Flury does not provide Bartmann’s protection order in the record, but her
declaration states the petition was filed on March 24, 2024.

2
No. 86971-0-I/3

was requesting the protection order “so he can use it against me at his will.” The

court held its first hearing on May 16, 2024. Because of technical difficulties, the

court could not hear arguments from both parties and continued the proceeding.

The court asked Flury and Bartmann whether either of them would have an issue

with it attaching Bartmann’s petition to its order so both parties would have a

copy. Both parties consented. The court held a second hearing on May 30,

2024, where both of the parties made statements. When asked about the DV

assessment, Flury noted she had completed it but it was not yet available. The

court determined it would be helpful to have the assessment and continued the

hearing.

The hearing reconvened on June 20, 2024. Both parties reiterated their

arguments from the previous hearing. After hearing from both Bartmann and

Flury, the court noted that “the evidence in the record is, frankly, overwhelming

as to both parties having committed domestic violence against each other.”

While the court found Flury was the victim of domestic abuse, it also found

Bartmann’s testimony credible and granted the protection order. The court noted

that “[w]hether Respondent, Ms. Flury, chooses to go file her own petition against

Mr. Bartmann, that—that’s up to her.” Flury appeals pro se.

ANALYSIS

Flury claims the trial court erred when it granted the DVPO because

(1) insufficient evidence existed to establish that she posed a credible threat of

violence or harm, (2) insufficient evidence existed to support a finding that she

was the aggressor, and (3) the court failed to consider Bartmann’s prior abusive

3
No. 86971-0-I/4

behavior. Bartmann did not file a response. We conclude that Flury failed to

perfect the record, which precludes us from reviewing her appeal.

An appellant seeking review “has the burden of perfecting the record so

that the reviewing court has before it all of the relevant evidence.” Bulzomi v.

Dep’t of Lab. and Indus., 72 Wn. App. 522, 525, 864 P.2d 996 (1994).

RAP 9.6(c)(1)(C) requires the appellant to designate the petition in a civil case.

When an appellant fails to include all relevant documents on appeal, the court is

precluded from reviewing the alleged errors. Bulzomi, 72 Wn. App. at 525-526.

Pro se litigants are subject to the same procedural and substantive laws as

litigants who seek assistance of counsel. In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App.

621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993).

Here, Flury challenges the court’s decision to grant Bartmann’s DVPO, but

Flury does not provide Bartmann’s petition in the record. Without Bartmann’s

petition, we are unable to review all of the evidence the trial court reviewed

before making its findings and entering the order. Because Flury failed to

provide a sufficient record for review, we must affirm.

We affirm.

WE CONCUR:

4