TACOMA (LN) — The Washington State Court of Appeals Division II on Friday affirmed domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) against Adam Couto but invalidated their speech restrictions, ruling the blanket ban on posting media referencing his estranged wife and children was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

The court held that while substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that Couto engaged in coercive control, the specific provisions prohibiting him from posting or sharing any videos or media with references to his family members were overbroad and violated his First Amendment rights.

Couto and Karina Asbach divorced in 2012 after years of alleged physical violence and emotional manipulation. In July 2024, Couto posted a YouTube video addressed to his adult son, Aiden Asbach. In the video, Couto claimed Karina had a narcissistic personality disorder and lied, stating he was sad he had not seen Aiden in three years.

Karina and Aiden filed separate petitions for DVPOs. Aiden alleged Couto had intentionally shown up at his workplace at a McDonald’s restaurant and at a grocery store where his minor sister, NC, was present.

The trial court granted the DVPOs and renewed a protection order for NC for one year. The court found Couto’s YouTube video constituted coercive control and ordered him to remove existing videos and prohibited him from posting or sharing any media with references to Karina, Aiden, or NC.

The appellate panel held that while the state has a compelling interest in preventing domestic violence, the trial court’s order was overbroad. The court noted the order could reasonably be read to prohibit Couto from ever acknowledging he was previously married or has children, or from discussing parenting in general.

"The orders prohibit Couto from discussing his estranged family in any manner whatsoever," the opinion wrote. "As such, the orders reasonably can be read to prohibit Couto from ever acknowledging that he was previously married or has children."

The court further noted the restriction was not limited of medium, meaning Couto arguably could not email a friend about his children or former wife.

"We conclude that the trial court’s orders are not narrowly tailored to the DVPO and violate the First Amendment," the court wrote.

The panel remanded the case to the trial court to modify the prohibition against posting videos in a manner consistent with the opinion. The court instructed the trial court to craft revised orders that may prohibit speech constituting coercive control or other domestic violence but must protect Couto’s First Amendment rights where his speech does not constitute such conduct.

Couto also appealed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Karina for the renewal of NC’s DVPO and requested reassignment to a different judge on remand. The appellate court affirmed the fee award and denied the request for reassignment, finding no indication the trial judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

The panel included Associate Chief Judge Veljacic, Judge Price, and Judge Maxa, who authored the opinion.