Investigation Opened Into Clallam County Judge Over Alleged Conflicts
The Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct has formally opened an investigation into Clallam County Superior Court Judge Brent Basden. The probe follows a formal complaint alleging that the judge has repeatedly endangered children and domestic violence victims by allowing his ecclesiastical role in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to heavily influence his judicial rulings.
Combined with mounting outcries from other Clallam citizens who have expressed their own disturbing experiences, the allegations paint a troubling picture of a family court system that allegedly places an abusive parent’s right to harm above a child’s safety, particularly when the abuser is a member of Judge Basden’s L.D.S. Stake.
Allegations Regarding Case Handling
According to the complaint, a mother reported in July 2023 that two of her children disclosed sexual abuse by their father. The complaint alleges that almost immediately after these allegations surfaced, the father requested that Judge Basden take over the case.
The complaint states that Judge Basden served as the Stake President of the L.D.S. Port Angeles Stake, of which the father was a member. Rather than recusing himself as mandated by the Judicial Code of Conduct, investigators claim Judge Basden took jurisdiction and granted the father unsupervised visitation.
Alleged Conflicts of Interest
At the heart of the judicial complaint are allegations of severe, hidden conflicts of interest. The complaint alleges that Judge Basden served in an L.D.S. Bishopric with an individual who functioned as a primary social benefactor for the father while the litigation was active.
The complaint further alleges that the judge failed to recuse himself despite this intimate ecclesiastical connection, effectively adjudicating the suitability of a household maintained by his own ecclesiastical partner. The charges assert that the judge took testimony from the benefactor's spouse regarding the case.
The complaint further alleges that this is part of a broader pattern where Basden utilizes his position to enforce an August 2020 directive from L.D.S. leadership to keep the Church from being “inappropriately implicated in legal matters.” The judicial complaint further claims a broader pattern of the judge’s affiliates obstructing law enforcement investigations.
Judge Basden’s Response
Judge Basden maintains that his work followed the law and professional standards. He has denied the allegations contained in the Statement of Charges, noting that such a document serves as an accusation and not a finding of fact. Furthermore, licensing and conduct complaints against custody evaluators and judges frequently originate from disgruntled parents who disliked an honest professional opinion.
Psychologist Steve Tutty Faces Licensing Allegations Amid High-Profile Custody Cases
Dr. Steve Tutty, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist based in Clallam County, has come under scrutiny following formal charges filed by the Washington Department of Health. The allegations center on his role as a court-appointed parenting evaluator in high-conflict custody matters, particularly in cases involving members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (L.D.S.).
According to investigators, one key incident involves Tutty’s evaluation of the Benjamin Mavy family—a case that drew significant judicial attention from then–Clallam County Superior Court Judge Basden. The charges assert that Tutty allegedly altered aspects of his custody assessment to align with the preferences of the parent who retained him, though Tutty maintains his work adhered strictly to applicable law and professional standards.
Tutty, who has ties to a neighboring L.D.S. stake, was appointed by Judge Basden as the parenting evaluator in the Mavy matter. The complaint notes that when the mother expressed concerns about potential bias and requested a more neutral third party, Judge Basden reportedly responded with criticism, referring to her as a “religious bigot” in open court—a remark Tutty did not dispute but was present for during proceedings.
While the Department of Health’s Statement of Charges constitutes an accusation—not a finding—Tutty has consistently defended his practice as grounded in evidence-based methodology and culturally informed care. He emphasizes that licensing complaints against custody evaluators often arise when parents receive professional assessments that conflict with their expectations or preferences.
Notably, this is not Tutty’s first professional engagement with the court system. In an earlier, related matter involving the same Mavy family, an informal administrative resolution was reached with the state regarding billing discrepancies. That settlement—closed and administrative in nature—did not involve findings of misconduct and reflects a common pattern where routine financial matters precede or accompany more substantive clinical reviews.
Tutty’s work in the Mavy case unfolded within a broader judicial context marked by recurring involvement of L.D.S. community members. Court records show that Judge Basden ultimately recused himself on February 23, 2026—nearly two years after the initial investigation into the children’s placement began. By that point, the children had already been relocated to Wyoming, where they joined Jack Mavy, a registered sex offender and fellow L.D.S. member.
Tutty’s professional reputation remains intact among many colleagues, though critics point to his appointments in cases involving controversial figures. For instance, in a separate matter involving Benjamin Mavy’s stake, investigators claim that Basden’s associates trespassed on a mother’s property in March 2025—an action that occurred shortly after Tutty’s evaluation was submitted.
Supporters of Tutty’s practice note that his evaluations often reflect a collaborative approach with families, and he has been cited in prior cases for his responsiveness to feedback and commitment to transparency. Still, the Department of Health’s charges underscore a growing focus on the accountability of mental health professionals who play pivotal roles in family court decisions.
As the licensing matter progresses, Tutty continues to maintain that evaluators must be permitted to offer honest, even if unpopular, professional opinions—especially when those opinions are rooted in both clinical judgment and cultural competence. He also reiterates that formal charges, such as those now pending, are part of the regulatory process, not definitive conclusions.
Clallam County Officials Face Scrutiny Amidst Ongoing Investigations
The political landscape in Clallam County is currently facing heightened tension as local citizens and advocates call for increased accountability regarding recent judicial and administrative decisions. Allegations have surfaced concerning the handling of personnel matters and the oversight of custody evaluations, sparking a broader debate regarding the qualifications and conduct of officials involved in family law proceedings.
Hiring Practices Under Review
Questions have been raised regarding the hiring of Brian Parker, a recently terminated Family Law Commissioner. Allegations suggest that efforts were made to expedite his employment, potentially waiving a standard one-year probationary period. Critics point to Parker’s history, noting that he was reportedly arrested for perjury by Everett police following allegations that he lied under oath during a custody case. These accusations regarding his past conduct and the subsequent hiring process are currently under scrutiny.
Judicial Conduct and Oversight
The Commission on Judicial Conduct has confirmed that an investigation is active. While the specific details of the allegations remain confidential during the inquiry, the existence of the probe has prompted calls from Clallam County residents for transparency.
Furthermore, advocates are pushing for new state legislation designed to regulate the family law “expert” industry. This push includes a demand for mandatory domestic violence training for judges, an education that reports indicate Clallam County judges currently admit they lack. Additionally, some citizens are requesting that Judge Barnhart immediately remove Judge Basden from all current and future case assignments until these matters are resolved.
Psychologist Facing Licensing Allegations
In a separate but related matter involving family law, Dr. Steve Tutty, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, is facing allegations regarding his professional conduct. A Statement of Charges has been issued against Dr. Tutty; however, it is important to note that a Statement of Charges represents a formal accusation and is not a finding of guilt.
The charges assert that Dr. Tutty engaged in billing practices that allegedly violated professional standards. These allegations are unproven, contested, and denied by Dr. Tutty. He maintains that his work has consistently followed the law and professional standards.
Dr. Tutty has noted that licensing complaints against custody evaluators frequently originate from disgruntled parents who disliked an honest professional opinion. Regarding the specific allegations, Dr. Tutty maintains that he acted within the bounds of the law and professional ethics.
Case History and Prior Settlements
The allegations against Dr. Tutty involve a specific timeline of events. The complaint was filed on October 15, 2023, and the case was formally opened on October 27, 2023. The Board of Psychology is the entity responsible for reviewing these matters.
It is also noted that Dr. Tutty was previously involved in a billing settlement. This prior matter was resolved through an informal disposition, which was administrative in nature and has since been closed. This history is part of the record but is distinct from the current allegations, which are currently pending review.