Clallam County Superior Court Judge Brent Basden participated in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ward council meetings that included deliberations about a family while he was overseeing their custody case, according to a fellow council member.
Brittney Hales, who served alongside Basden on the weekly ward council from 2022 through mid-2026, said participants deliberately omitted him from those discussions to avoid a conflict of interest. She noted he typically stepped out before more detailed information was exchanged and that no follow-up summaries were provided to him afterward.
A review of the court file for the case showed no formal disclosure by Basden about his church role. When asked whether he had informed the litigants directly, Hales did not have details on that point.
Hales explained that Basden and she held leadership positions within the same congregation: she as Young Women president and he as ward mission leader, as noted in February 2026 correspondence she authored. Benjamin Mavy, a party in the underlying custody matter, attended the same congregation and had ties to both Basden and Hales.
Discussions about the Mavy family occurred on four occasions while Basden was present, though he was consistently excluded from substantive portions of those conversations. Hales described a consistent practice: whenever a name arose tied to a case Basden was judging, the group would ask him to depart or he would depart voluntarily, later rejoining once the discussion resumed.
This protocol applied not only to the Mavy case but also to other families with overlapping church and court involvement, she added.
The ward council’s deliberations focused on logistical and ministering considerations—such as congregation boundaries and assignment of adult volunteers to support the family—rather than legal specifics from the custody dispute.
Hales emphasized that her observations were drawn from firsthand participation and reflected her personal perspective, not an official stance from the local congregation or the broader church structure.
Her understanding of Basden’s approach was reinforced by their shared history. She described Basden as someone she knew well, citing his leadership as former head of the Port Angeles Stake and his personal friendship with Matt Kiddle—a mutual acquaintance of both Basden and Benjamin Mavy. Basden had referred to Kiddle as a “good personal friend” during a trial in late 2025.
Shared Church Ties Between Judge and Litigant in Custody Case
In December 2025 courtroom proceedings, a witness identified Judge Basden and herself as being connected through one of her closest friends. That friendship extended beyond personal circles, intersecting with housing arrangements central to the ongoing custody dispute.
Basden and the witness, identified as Mavy, had both held leadership positions within their local congregation. A May 2022 podcast description noted that Bishop Jason Bringhurst appointed them as his two counselors following Basden’s term as stake president concluded.
The mutual friend also played a role in Mavy’s living situation. Court records indicate the family had been renting property owned by the Kiddle family. Earlier reporting confirmed that Matt Kiddle’s wife, Amanda, testified in the custody matter, prompting questions about potential overlap between religious and judicial spheres.
Matt Kiddle publicly supported Basden in a statement released in January. While acknowledging his familiarity with the judge was limited, he invited scrutiny, asking which specific cases might illustrate perceived bias, and suggesting such examples could exist but remain undocumented.
Dual Roles Spark Concerns About Conflict
Ken Meek, an LDS member with extensive local leadership experience—including two stints as bishop and two as a bishopric counselor—raised concerns about Basden’s concurrent religious and judicial duties in a September 2026 declaration. Meek, who served alongside Basden in the Cali, Colombia mission, described how Basden hadfunctioned as assistant to the mission president when Meek began his service there.
Meek pointed to Basden’s sustained involvement in church leadership—first as stake president, then in a bishopric—while simultaneously fulfilling judicial responsibilities. He observed that such overlapping roles were not uncommon but emphasized how they could blur boundaries between spiritual counsel and legal rulings.
According to Meek, church leaders routinely advise members on matters ranging from divorce and custody to domestic violence, child neglect, and financial strain. A bishop who also serves as a judge, he argued, would naturally absorb insights about ongoing legal conflicts involving congregation members.
He concluded that religious leaders presiding over legal cases involving current or former members face inherent conflicts, particularly when they hold positions of authority in both realms.
A judicial-conduct complaint filed in April echoed these concerns, noting that Basden’s church duties provided access to information about Mavy outside formal court channels.
Separation of Roles Under Scrutiny
Hales, representing the court, countered these claims in February, asserting that Basden had taken deliberate steps to keep his church and judicial responsibilities distinct. She noted that during church gatherings involving her family, Basden would often step out of the room, suggesting intentional awareness of dual roles.
Her written explanation did not reference any formal disclosure about his council position in relation to the custody case.
Law Enforcement’s Role and Living Conditions
Hales also defended Basden’s comments about law enforcement involvement in family matters. A clip from the December 2025 trial captured his view that police engagement, regardless of initial cause, tends to draw children deeper into the conflict, thereby intensifying existing challenges.
Earlier reporting highlighted Mavy’s residence in a trailer located adjacent to a former drug house in Port Angeles, now condemned. Mavy contested how the property was monitored, arguing the trailer—and even its attached garden hose—were not visible from the street.
During the December 10, 2025, hearing, Mavy played a 911 dispatch recording that underscored concerns about responsiveness and perception during police visits.
A staff member at Olympic Medical Center contacted emergency dispatchers to request a welfare inspection of a home in Mavy’s ownership, citing reports that the children residing there were suffering from fevers and vomiting. The nurse informed the dispatcher that the residence lacked running water, heating, and food.
In subsequent correspondence, a woman identified as Hales commented on remarks made by Judge Basden regarding Child Protective Services visits, describing the agency’s checks as resembling harassment. She expressed the view that judicial intervention was necessary to address the situation. While Hales admitted she lacked detailed knowledge of other investigations, she stated she was unaware of specifics concerning potential domestic violence inquiries involving Mavy in other jurisdictions, nor could she confirm whether those investigations had formally commenced.
Deference to a former judge
In a distinct dispute involving downtown real estate, the Peninsula Daily News reported in October 2020 that municipal authorities had flagged unsafe conditions, overdoses, and felony assaults at properties owned by former Superior Court Judge Brian Coughenour, located behind the Safeway store on East Fifth Street. The publication later detailed the presence of scrap, abandoned vehicles, and other debris on the land. Coughenour attributed the accumulation to homeless individuals drawn to the area during the pandemic, noting that state eviction moratoriums complicated their removal.
On September 1, City Attorney Bill Bloor acknowledged Coughenour’s previous service as an attorney and judge. In a letter quoted by the newspaper, Bloor stated that the city would hold off on formal enforcement action given these circumstances, while requesting that Coughenour remedy the issues. By September 30, the city’s code-enforcement officer had issued a violation notice. In December, Deputy Police Chief Jason Viada reported significant improvements, noting that nearly a dozen dump-truck loads of refuse had been hauled away. Although debris remained, Viada indicated that Coughenour was cooperating and could avoid court proceedings if he maintained a satisfactory cleanup pace. This sequence of events contrasted with the Mavy case, where a nurse initiated police scrutiny of living conditions after the city had initially withheld formal action in the Coughenour matter.
Mavy’s effort to remove reporting
Judge Basden also oversaw a separate civil suit filed by Mavy in August 2025. On October 21, 2025, Basden denied a request to revise an order previously issued by former Clallam County Superior Court Commissioner Brian Parker, leaving the original directive intact. Mavy had initiated the civil petition after Wyoming authorities charged him with making a false statement to secure an elk license.
In the filing, Mavy claimed that communications between the publisher and wildlife investigators amounted to harassment. These communications involved the provision of public records and the disclosure that Mavy was residing at the address of Matt Kiddle.
Presiding Judge Barnhart of the Clallam County Superior Court removed Commissioner Parker from the bench on February 10, 2026. Following this, Judge Basden recused himself from the case on February 23, 2026.
During a hearing, Judge Basden described media coverage regarding his potential conflicts of interest as “cyberbullying,” according to reporting from the Real Olympic Herald on January 23. That coverage included his appointment of former law partner Lane Wolfley to represent a defendant in a murder trial. Mavy subsequently attempted to leverage the civil proceeding to seek the removal of more than 30 Herald articles, which included coverage of Judge Basden’s relationships and Mavy’s own testimony concerning a mutual friend.
Courthouse Protest Sparks Legal Tensions Over Reporting and Judicial Conduct
On January 29, community members assembled outside the Clallam County Courthouse to voice concerns about two individuals, Basden and Parker. Coverage of that gathering, along with a follow-up report published February 2, formed part of a broader reporting effort that later became the focus of a legal motion seeking penalties and publication restrictions.
A resident identified as Mavy viewed the media’s treatment of the protest as an ongoing campaign of scrutiny, likening it to stalking or harassment. He petitioned the court to impose a daily fine of up to $2,000, contingent upon the removal of the articles in question.
A visiting judge from Kitsap County ruled against the removal request on April 16. Undeterred, Mavy pursued additional safeguards limiting what could be published about him—specifically targeting contextual details that, while not naming him directly, could still pinpoint his identity. On May 28, Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Houser denied those proposed limits, deeming them an unjustified and unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
Appeals Judge Criticizes Basden’s Handling of Juror Substitution
Judge Ian Birk, currently serving on the Washington Court of Appeals and a recent gubernatorial endorse for the state Supreme Court, reviewed a separate incident involving Judge Basden and found significant procedural shortcomings. Earlier reporting by this publication on January 24 detailed how a court bailiff swapped out a seated juror with an alternate who had been temporarily excused—without first alerting Judge Basden or the involved attorneys.
Upon learning of the change, Judge Basden indicated the adjustment appeared suitable. Judge Birk, however, took a firmer stance, labeling the lack of prior consultation and notice “an error of constitutional magnitude.” He noted that Judge Basden further deepened the constitutional implications by not formally determining whether to dismiss the original juror or conduct a hearing with the alternate.
Guidelines Shape Church Involvement in Legal Matters
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides guidance to its leaders on how and when to disclose information about members involved in legal proceedings. According to Section 4.4.6 of its General Handbook, leaders typically seek permission before sharing member details with ecclesiastical councils and honor confidentiality preferences. Certain topics are deemed too sensitive for full council discussion and are shared externally only as necessary to fulfill leadership directives.
Sections 38.8.24.1 and 38.8.24.2 outline additional protocols: leaders are expected to consult with Church legal counsel before engaging in members’ legal cases and must obtain approval from the Office of General Counsel before submitting testimony or evidence in an official capacity.
One individual involved, Hales, clarified that her public remarks reflected personal insights rather than official Church positions. Her statements outlined topics the council had reviewed, though she did not specify whether the family concerned had consented to the sharing of their information.
For Judge Basden, the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct sets distinct expectations. Rule 2.4 bars judges from letting personal or social ties sway their decisions, while Rule 2.9 limits extrajudicial commentary on active or imminent cases, with specific carve-outs. Rule 2.11 mandates recusal when a judge’s impartiality could reasonably come into question, and its commentary encourages judges to voluntarily disclose relevant information—even when they believe stepping aside is unnecessary.
Hales observed that council members acknowledged a potential conflict tied to Basden’s council involvement and implemented measures to limit his participation in certain discussions. She maintained those steps proved effective. A review of the custody court file by this publication, however, found no record of Basden’s council affiliation being formally disclosed.
As of the time of printing, the presiding judge had not replied to inquiries regarding the case. In a separate effort to obtain a statement, the publication reached out to Presiding Judge Simon Barnhart. An automatic response from his office indicated that he would be absent until the morning of Thursday, April 23, 2025.