Who Protects Washington’s Children from False Evidence in Family Court?

In King County, Washington (case 20-3-06035-0 SEA), a six-year-old girl known here as A.R. is living through something no child should endure: being cut off from her loving father—not because of abuse, neglect, or danger, but because of a flawed and contested report that experts say never should have been used in court. No notice. No proper evidentiary hearing. Just an abrupt court order restricting her from her father, without explanation, and with a gag order silencing him from speaking out.

An emergency motion was filed in U.S. District Court (case 2:25-cv-01360-JHC) weeks ago. It awaits court engagement and action. For over three years, A.R. thrived under a stable, 50/50 custody arrangement. She flourished in her community—attending kindergarten with her father volunteering in her classroom, hiking local trails together, baking cookies for neighbors, and tending a shared garden. Her father, a decorated U.S. Air Force veteran and respected community member, has no criminal record, no history of violence, and has been deemed by multiple doctors and court experts to be a safe, healthy, and loving parent. The court’s own Guardian ad Litem found no harm to A.R. and recommended shared custody.

Three Times—Three False Premises

A.R.’s time with her father has now been restricted three times in the past three years, each time based on false evidence—and each time without consequence for the judges who ignored the law.

The most recent restriction, in April 2025, was based on a domestic violence assessment riddled with errors: falsely claiming a criminal history, mischaracterizing lawful self-defense, and incorrectly recording test answers. The court ignored two other assessments—one by a state-certified Ph.D. and another by the Veterans Administration—both showing no risk. No explanation has ever been provided for why multiple reports were demanded, or why the exculpatory ones were disregarded. Exculpatory trial testimony also directly contradicts the assessment was disregarded.

Attorneys and the judge were told the report contained false information. The assessment admitted it into evidence anyway, without correction and without judicial review. Under privacy laws like HIPAA and the Privacy Act, such assessments cannot be released without consent or a specific court order after an in-camera review. No such review occurred. No written findings were made. No balancing of privacy and probative value was done. No release of information was given.

A Stark Contrast to the Truth

The assessment’s falsehoods have been extensively documented to the Washington State Department of Health. Public records—including police reports—show the reality: no violence, no criminal history, high community standing, and a strong record of safe, engaged parenting as reported by the court's Guard Ad Litem. Multiple licensed Ph.D. experts deemed the assessment invalid, harmful, and in violation of Washington regulations. The evaluator who wrote it never even interviewed the father.

Where Is the Accountability?

So who is responsible for protecting children like A.R. from harm caused by false evidence and illegal court practices? The Department of Health? Governor Ferguson? Attorney General Brown? The Washington State Bar Association? Judges? Attorneys? The press?

Washington Attorney General Brown—an Army veteran who campaigned on defending civil rights—has the power to investigate. Will he? The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice have been contacted. Still, more than six civil rights and military discrimination complaints from Washington residents remain unreviewed.

A Call to Action

Every day that A.R. is separated from her father based on false evidence is another day her U.S. constitutional rights—and his—are being violated. This is not just a custody dispute. It’s a civil rights crisis for a child, and it’s happening in plain sight. It is happening across Washington state to many children.

We call on:

• The U.S. Supreme Court (case filed in July 2025) – to grant review in the case of Navy veteran Sean Kuhlmeyer, where Washington courts have barred his son from seeing him until his son is 36 years old. This extreme order underscores the urgent need for the Court to address systemic due process violations, anti-veteran bias, and the misuse of family court authority.

• The U.S. Department of Justice – to immediately investigate the documented pattern of false evidence, privacy violations, and due process failures in Washington family courts.

• The Washington Attorney General – to launch an independent review into the STOP agency’s conduct and the courts’ use of faulty reports.

• State lawmakers – to pass legislation requiring independent verification of contested assessments before they can be used to restrict a child’s time with a parent. Three times A.R. has experienced the state violating her civil rights to be with her father and she is only a 6-year-old!

• The media – to investigate and report on the human toll of these systemic failures.

The question is not whether this is happening—it is how many children are being harmed before someone with the authority to act finally steps in.

A.R. asked her father on June 15, 2025 in a court-allowed phone call (no visitation is allowed): "When will I get to be with you daddy?"It was Father's Day. She clearly wants to know when she can see her dad again. She asked who is making up "rules" to keep her from her father. We should all be asking the same questions.