The Washington Court of Appeals has upheld domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) for Karina Asbach and her son Aiden against Adam Couto. The court's decision, issued on March 31, 2026, comes after a series of incidents involving Couto's aggressive behavior and public statements that raised concerns about the safety and well-being of his family. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal protections available to victims of domestic violence and addresses the complexities of free speech in such cases.

The case began when Karina Asbach filed for a DVPO against her ex-husband Adam Couto, citing a history of domestic violence during their marriage, which ended in divorce in 2012. Aiden Asbach, now an adult, also sought a protection order against Couto after he published a YouTube video that was perceived as an attempt to manipulate and control the family dynamics. The court's ruling not only affirms the protection orders but also requires modifications to the restrictions placed on Couto's ability to speak about his family.

Background

Aiden Asbach and his mother, Karina Asbach, filed petitions for DVPOs against Adam Couto, who has a documented history of domestic violence. The couple divorced in 2012, with Karina citing Couto's abusive behavior as a primary reason for the separation. Over the years, multiple DVPOs have been issued against Couto due to his aggressive conduct, which included verbal abuse, physical intimidation, and emotional manipulation.

After their divorce, Couto's behavior persisted, leading to a series of protection orders aimed at safeguarding Karina and their children, Aiden and NC. In 2024, Couto posted a YouTube video in which he claimed to reach out to Aiden, but the video included disparaging remarks about Karina, which prompted both Aiden and Karina to seek renewed protection. The trial court granted the DVPOs, finding that Couto's actions constituted coercive control, a form of domestic violence.

The Ruling

The Washington Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the DVPOs to Karina and Aiden. The court found substantial evidence supporting the claim of domestic violence based on Couto's history of aggressive behavior and the impact of his recent actions, including the YouTube video. The opinion stated, "Couto has subjected the protected person to... coercive control; unlawful harassment; or stalking."

Additionally, the court upheld the trial court's decision to award attorney fees to Karina for the renewal of NC's DVPO. However, the court identified a critical issue regarding the restrictions placed on Couto's ability to post videos or share information about his family. The ruling emphasized that while the state has a compelling interest in preventing domestic violence, the restrictions must not infringe upon Couto's First Amendment rights. The court noted that the prohibition against posting any media related to his family was overly broad and must be revised to ensure it is narrowly tailored.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for domestic violence victims and their abusers. It reinforces the legal framework that allows victims to seek protection from their abusers and the courts' authority to impose restrictions to safeguard their safety. The decision also highlights the complexities of balancing the rights of victims with the free speech rights of the accused. The court's requirement for a more narrowly tailored restriction on Couto's speech underscores the need for courts to carefully consider the implications of their orders on First Amendment rights.

Going forward, this ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases involving domestic violence and free speech. It illustrates the courts' commitment to protecting victims while also acknowledging the constitutional rights of individuals accused of misconduct. The case emphasizes the importance of a nuanced approach to domestic violence protection orders, particularly in an era where social media and public statements can have profound effects on family dynamics.

What’s Next

The court's decision allows for the possibility of appeal, particularly concerning the modification of the speech restrictions imposed on Couto. The trial court will need to revisit the language of its orders to ensure they comply with constitutional standards while still protecting the interests of Karina and Aiden. Details regarding any related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.