The expiration of a protection order renders an appeal of that order moot. See Price v. Price, 174 Wn.App. 894, 902, 301 P.3d 486 (2013).

The expiration of a protection order generally means we cannot provide such relief, and a party's challenge to the order is thus moot. See Price v. Price, 174 Wn.App. 894, 896, 902, 301 P.3d 486 (2013) ("Both protection orders have long expired; thus, Veronica's challenges to these orders are moot."). Here, the AHPO expired on January 22, 2025 and no longer restrains Khaki. Thus, as in Price, Khaki's challenges to the AHPO are moot.

"Generally, we will dismiss an appeal where only moot or abstract questions remain or where the issues raised in the trial court no longer exist." Price v. Price, 174 Wn.App. 894, 902, 301 P.3d 486 (2013). A case is not moot, however, when the court can still provide effective relief.

"Generally, we will dismiss an appeal where only moot or abstract questions remain or where the issues raised in the trial court no longer exist." Price v. Price, 174 Wn.App. 894, 902, 301 P.3d 486 (2013). A case is not moot if a court can still provide effective relief.

"Generally, we will dismiss an appeal where only moot or abstract questions remain or where the issues raised in the trial court no longer exist." Price v. Price, 174 Wn.App. 894, 490, 301 P.3d 486 (2013). A case is not moot, however, when the court can still provide effective relief.

Additionally, there exists no continuing and substantial public interest because the issue is private in nature and the Washington courts have previously decided the same legal question underlying the claim. See Price v. Price, 174 Wn.App. 894, 903-04, 301 P.3d 486 (2013) (error to restrain access to jointly owned property under RCW 10.14.080(8) instead of chapter 26.09 RCW). Therefore, because the issue is moot and harbors no public interest, we decline to decide the merits of the claim.

"Generally, we will dismiss an appeal where only moot or abstract questions remain or where the issues raised in the trial court no longer exist." Price v. Price, 174 Wn.App. 894, 902, 301 P.3d 486 (2013). A case is not moot if a court can still provide effective relief.

The proper recourse for a moot appeal is to dismiss. Price v. Price, 174 Wn.App. 894, 902, 301 P.3d 486 (2013). We dismiss the appeal as moot.

Both the Washington Supreme Court and this court have reviewed the issuance of civil antiharassment orders based on the trial court's oral ruling where the trial court did not enter written findings of fact or conclusions of law. See Trummel, 156 Wn.2d at 657-58; Price v. Price, 174 Wn. App. 894, 900-01, 301 P.3d 486 (2013). In addition, the trial court did not designate expiration dates on the antiharassment orders at issue in this case, but they presumably expired in September 2020.

As to Nadene's request for an award of attorney fees, a pro se party can establish no such entitlement. Price v. Price, 174 Wn. App. 894, 905, 301 P.3d 486 (2013) (citing In re Marriage of Brown, 159 Wn. App. 931, 938-39, 247 P.3d 466 (2011)). Moreover, the response briefs filed by the respondents do not advance frivolous arguments.