Full Opinion

FILED OCTOBER 29, 2026 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WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE TODD LAHMAN, on behalf of K.L., ) a minor child, ) No. 41433-7-III ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION N.B., ) ) Appellant. ) HILL, J. — N.B. appeals a domestic violence protection order issued against him in July 2025. Because the protection order has expired, we cannot provide any effective relief. We dismiss the appeal as moot. FACTS In December 2024, N.B. and K.L. began a short-lived dating relationship. After they broke up, K.L. claimed that N.B. began bullying her at school, spreading rumors about their relationship, and “disparage[d]” her character. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 117. No. 41433-7-III Lahman v. N.B. K.L.’s father filed a Petition for a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) against N.B. and his parents on behalf of K.L. CP at 1. After a hearing, the court granted the DVPO pursuant to RCW 7.105.225 for one year beginning on July 31, 2025. N.B. appeals. ANALYSIS Ordinarily, we review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a domestic violence protection order for abuse of discretion. See Rodriguez v. Zavala, 188 Wn.2d 586, 590, 398 P.3d 1071 (2017). However, the protection order in this case has expired. Generally, we will not review an issue that is moot. State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901, 906, 287 P.3d 584 (2012). An appeal is moot when a court can no longer provide practical relief. Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249, 253, 692 P.2d 793 (1984). “We consider a case moot when a controversy no longer lies between the parties, all questions are merely academic, or a substantial question no longer exists.” Harke v. Harke, 29 Wn. App. 2d 866, 872, 543 P.3d 829 (2024). Such is often the case with expired protection orders. Id. We may nevertheless review the merits of a moot appeal if there are issues of continuing and substantial interest. Blackmon v. Blackmon, 155 Wn. App. 715, 719, 230 P.3d 233 (2010). In making this determination, we consider “(1) whether the issue is of a public or private nature, (2) whether an authoritative determination is desirable to provide future guidance of public officers, and (3) whether the issue is likely to recur.” Id. The 2 No. 41433-7-III Lahman v. N.B. parties do not raise or address these issues because the briefing was filed before the protection order expired. However, we conclude there are no issues of continuing and substantial interest for us to address the merits of this appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal as moot. We decline to award attorney fees on appeal. Dismissed as moot. 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. Hill, J. WE CONCUR: Cooney, A.C.J. Murphy, J. 3