A sweeping civil complaint uncovers alleged patterns of judicial conduct tied to former Clallam County Commissioner Brian Parker
A 148-page civil filing details what plaintiffs describe as a coordinated effort by Parker and two leading Everett law firms to influence outcomes in a high-conflict custody dispute—actions that ultimately contributed to Parker’s departure from the bench and broader scrutiny of local family court practices.
The suit, filed by Gina Bloom, a domestic violence advocate and survivor, targets Parker, his former law firm Port Gardner Law Group, and partners Damon Canfield and Jennifer Bitner. It frames their collective actions as part of a broader civil conspiracy involving case management tactics, evidentiary control, and law enforcement collaboration.
According to the document, Bloom’s custody matter became a focal point for implementing strategies that extended beyond individual litigation, affecting how family court functions in Snohomish and Clallam counties.
The complaint traces the origins of the dispute to early 2021, when Canfield, representing Bloom’s ex-husband, formally requested Parker serve as Guardian ad Litem. From that point, the filing suggests, Parker’s role evolved from neutral evaluator to active participant in shaping the case’s trajectory.
The suit identifies a pattern of financial and procedural alignment between Parker and Canfield Madow Law Group, citing data showing that half of Parker’s appointments in Snohomish County came from cases handled by the firm. The plaintiffs argue this created a self-reinforcing system in which Parker’s recommendations carried outsized weight, particularly where CMLG interests were involved.
Earlier reporting had noted Parker’s sudden exit from the Clallam County bench earlier this year, following his arrest on first-degree perjury charges by Everett police. The civil suit adds layers to that timeline, situating those developments within a longer arc of conduct that included public criticism, internal communications, and court filings that sometimes obscured key details.
In response, Parker and Port Gardner Law Group filed a 40-page rebuttal on May 19, 2026. Their filing rejects the conspiracy framing and emphasizes Parker’s judicial immunity as central to the defense strategy.
The complaint also highlights interpersonal dynamics between Parker and Bloom, recounting a February 2021 meeting at Parker’s Everett office where, according to the allegations, he made comments about her accent and immigration background, touched her without consent, and reportedly cautioned her that speaking publicly about their interactions could undermine her credibility.
A separate section of the answer addresses these encounters, with Parker’s legal team acknowledging the meeting occurred but characterizing the interactions as professional and appropriate, while disputing the characterization of his conduct as harassment or retaliation.
The lawsuit remains active in Clallam County Superior Court, with discovery expected to proceed in coming months.
The filing also describes an April 2021 telephone exchange in which Parker allegedly raised his voice at Bloom, telling her that unless she brought her children to his office for an interview—rejecting her request for a home visit where her domestic violence advocate could attend—he would seek a court order authorizing her ex-husband to take them from her by force.
The lawsuit alleges Parker subsequently weaponized such threats. In later reports filed as guardian ad litem, Parker labeled Bloom as having a “personality disorder,” a claim the complaint says he copied from an online psychology text in order to undermine her credibility preemptively.
Despite this, the court relied heavily on Parker’s amateur assessment, even though he allegedly withheld five separate licensed medical evaluations that found no mental health issues in Bloom and documented her severe PTSD stemming from domestic violence.
In their formal reply, Parker’s legal team denied all allegations of sexual harassment, mockery, and retaliatory threats.
Parker acknowledged that a phone call about bringing the children to his office took place but denied issuing any threats.
Defendants further conceded that Parker “does not have clinical training or a license in any mental health discipline,” while maintaining that his mental health reporting to the court involved no wrongdoing.
Suppressed Evidence and Illegal Surveillance
The complaint accuses Parker of routinely ignoring the ex-husband’s misconduct while withholding evidence that supported Bloom’s concerns.
According to the filing, in August 2021 the ex-husband traveled with the children to Florida in violation of an active domestic violence protection order, causing one child to miss a scheduled forensic interview. The lawsuit alleges Parker approved the journey without alerting Bloom or the court.
The complaint further states that throughout summer 2021 the ex-huhan conducted illegal surveillance, recording interactions involving the children and sending the footage to Parker.
In a July 2021 recording captured by the ex-husband with a GoPro, the children allegedly told a responding officer they feared their father and believed he intended to harm them.
Parker allegedly received those recordings but never disclosed them to the court, continuing instead to describe Bloom as the source of the children’s distress.
The Answer document admits that video files were transferred to Parker and that he did not reference them in his reports.
The defense claims Parker “does not recall viewing the videos” and denies that he permitted or approved the Florida trip.
Courthouse Intimidation and Perjury
The lawsuit alleges intimidation extended beyond Parker’s office. During an October 2021 domestic violence protection order hearing—a proceeding in which Parker held no court-assigned role—he allegedly sat beside the ex-husband and Canfield, testified against Bloom, then winked and licked his lips at her in the courthouse hallway, triggering a panic attack.
In a separate December 2022 incident, months after his formal guardian ad litem role ended, Parker allegedly walked past Bloom outside the courthouse making kissy faces, winking, and producing huffing noises, prompting her to shout at him in the street.
Parker’s legal representatives formally concede that the defendant, identified as a Sequim landlord in the underlying dispute, made vocal outbursts during a December 2022 interaction, though they contest claims regarding sexually suggestive behavior. These civil allegations arise concurrently with Parker’s referral for criminal prosecution.
During a trial held in May 2022, Parker testified under oath that he had no memory of the plaintiff ever requesting a home visit. Subsequently, the Everett Police Department recommended first-degree perjury charges after determining that Parker had billed for reviewing an email containing the request he claimed never to have received. In their response to the lawsuit, Parker’s counsel stated that the trial transcripts, billing records, and police documentation provide sufficient explanation.
The October 2021 Custody Reversal
The complaint details the events of October 29, 2021, the date on which the plaintiff lost primary custody of her two young sons. On that morning, the plaintiff’s five-year-old son fell ill. While her former spouse was in another city attending a small claims hearing against a close friend of the plaintiff, she transported the child to the Seattle Children’s Hospital Emergency Room, where the boy later tested positive for COVID-19. The plaintiff sent three timestamped emails to the presiding judge and the defense attorney to confirm her location.
According to the filing, at an emergency ex parte hearing held that afternoon, the judge allegedly informed the court that the plaintiff’s whereabouts were unknown and characterized her decision to seek medical care as a risky unilateral change in custody arrangements. The lawsuit asserts that the evidence used to remove custody from the plaintiff relied on a declaration provided by the former spouse’s pregnant partner.
The complaint alleges that this document was written in English using a template from the CMLG by the former spouse himself, then signed by the partner, a native Spanish speaker who subsequently required two court interpreters during the trial proceedings. The suit further claims that the defense attorney advised the former spouse to use Google Translate to create the statement for a 14-day hearing that had not yet been scheduled.
The lawsuit contrasts this private coordination with a June 2021 email in which the defense attorney declined to pass along a simple scheduling inquiry from the plaintiff, citing that his "role requires objectivity" and that he could not "act as one party’s representative or advocate." While Parker’s attorneys acknowledged the existence of both the June email and the communication regarding translation, they denied involvement in any coordinated plan.
Emails secured by the plaintiff indicate that at 11:40 a.m., more than two hours prior to the start of the hearing, the defense attorney had privately assured the judge and the former spouse that he would "definitely recommend an immediate change of custody," suggesting he had abandoned a neutral investigative stance.
Additionally, the complaint reveals that on October 14, 2021, the defense attorney contacted Child Protective Services to criticize the plaintiff’s credibility, describing her as "very difficult to handle" and possessing "low credibility," shortly after a phone conversation with the judge.
The suit further alleges that a report filed by the defense attorney on October 26, 2021, incorrectly stated that the plaintiff was uncooperative with a court-ordered psychological evaluation. This assertion was made despite an email from the evaluator, a local psychologist, clarifying that the delay resulted from the doctor’s own exposure to COVID-19. According to the lawsuit, the defense attorney’s law clerk identified this discrepancy before the report was filed, but the attorney instructed the clerk to submit the uncorrected document regardless.
Weaponizing Law Enforcement
Parker’s legal team has formally acknowledged the existence of key internal communications, including an October 2022 email from a Port Gardner paralegal who expressed optimism that the October 29 custody handover would prompt the mother to either self-harm or report the father to child protective services and law enforcement. The defense maintains these documents stand on their own without further elaboration.
A critical concession came regarding the October 29 hearing, where Parker’s attorneys admitted he never directly spoke with the girlfriend whose sworn statement heavily influenced the judge’s decision to shift custody.
Bloom contends that following the custody transfer, Parker initiated a sustained effort to involve law enforcement as a tool of control. According to the lawsuit, he made five separate reports to police between January 2022 and October 2024—often guided by his attorneys—while exercising routine parenting responsibilities. These included alerting officers when she visited a Chase Bank branch to manage shared accounts, filed updates in the court-ordered co-parenting platform “Our Family Wizard,” and attended her son’s public football games.
Each encounter concluded without criminal charges. A January 2024 decision by the Marysville municipal prosecutor underscored this pattern, declining prosecution and noting the reports appeared aimed at “gaining leverage in the ongoing custody dispute” rather than addressing actual misconduct.
Strategic Messaging and Private Doubts
The litigation reveals a contrast between public courtroom arguments and private reflections. An November 2021 email from attorney Damon Canfield to Parker referenced a news article about Josh Powell—the Washington man who killed his two young sons during a supervised visit in 2012—as a way to dismiss Bloom’s concerns about child safety. Canfield reportedly tagged her with an “unnatural obsession with her children being injured,” suggesting her fears were disproportionate.
Though Parker’s counsel accepted the email’s authenticity and its relevance, they rejected claims of coordinated malice or a broader conspiracy.
Escalating Intimidation and Strategic Retreat
Bloom’s efforts to bring attention to Parker’s conduct reportedly triggered an intensifying series of intimidation tactics. In March 2023, a handwritten note saying simply “dead” with a smiley face appeared on her car windshield at her Bellevue workplace. Two months later, during a supervised parenting session, she received a small jewelry box inscribed with the plea “KILL YOURSELF.”
Later that December, she alleges Damon Canfield tracked her through Bellevue Square during her shift, and upon returning home, discovered a message assembled entirely from adhesive stickers: “YOU DON’T DESERVE TO LIVE. YOU ARE BETTER DEAD!”
Overwhelmed by what she viewed as repeated misuse of official channels against her, Bloom entered a period of seclusion, living for six months under the support of a domestic violence agency. She also undertook a legal name change to distance herself from the ongoing pressure.
The suit further notes that even after Parker’s formal removal from the case, a separate act of intimidation was allegedly directed at her—suggesting the campaign extended beyond formal legal proceedings.
Allegations of Inappropriate Conduct
The complaint alleges that on February 28, 2025, while a lawsuit was pending and Parker served as a commissioner in Clallam County, he engaged in unsettling conduct toward Bloom during proceedings. The filing claims Parker stared at her during a venue hearing, placed a pencil in his mouth, bit his lips, and winked at her outside the clerk’s office. The defense acknowledged Bloom’s presence in the courthouse but firmly denied that Parker engaged in any sexually suggestive behavior.
Evidence Regarding Child Custody
The 148-page complaint details law enforcement records concerning the residence Parker deemed safer for the children. In January 2024, the ex-husband’s new wife—the individual whose declaration was used to remove Bloom’s children—contacted 911. Bodycam footage captured her telling officers she felt trapped, feared her husband might harm her, and suspected her phone was being monitored.
In March 2025, Bloom’s 11-year-old son dialed 911 from his father’s backyard. The transcript cited in the complaint indicates the child told the dispatcher his father was threatening his stepmother and that his dad “always lies.” Before disconnecting, the child asked, “I want to go back to my mom. She lives in Bellevue. Can you take me back to my mom?”
Immunity and Judicial Error
Parker and the Port Gardner Law Group seek the dismissal of the lawsuit. Their affirmative defenses cite protection under “quasi-judicial immunity” and “litigation privilege,” doctrines that shield court-appointed officers from civil liability for actions taken during official duties. The defense argues that any damages Bloom suffered resulted from her “own fault,” the actions of “other parties,” or “judicial error” by the presiding judges. Parker’s team also requests legal fees and costs under Civil Rule 11, a rule designed to punish frivolous or baseless litigation.
Consequences for Parker
The institutional reckoning for Brian Parker has been slow but severe. In November 2023, following the Everett Police Department’s criminal referral for first-degree perjury, Snohomish County Superior Court temporarily suspended Parker from his role as a pro tem commissioner. The lawsuit notes that on December 6, 2023, the municipal prosecutor declined to file charges under the strict “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, prompting the court to reinstate Parker to the bench that very same day without a separate administrative investigation. He was subsequently hired as a Family Court Commissioner in Clallam County in early 2025, before being terminated a year later.