A Washington State Court of Appeals case involving Melissa Strawn is challenging King County Superior Court orders that altered custody arrangements and domestic violence protections.
An 83-page appellate brief was filed on May 11, 2026, seeking to overturn rulings that granted sole decision-making authority to Strawn's former spouse.
The appeal centers on an evaluation conducted by Dr. William Singer of the Northwest Evaluation Center. The filing alleges that court proceedings prioritized docket management over due process, relying on this evaluation to reverse the domestic violence narrative.
Trial Conduct
The dispositive phase of the dissolution trial took place in June 2025 without Strawn's presence. Medical records filed at the time indicated she was hospitalized with pneumonia and mononucleosis, with emergency room notes requesting excusal from court.
The trial judge proceeded with the hearing rather than granting a medical continuance. The court ruled that Strawn's medical absences were "not credible" and characterized her emergency motions as financially motivated "delay tactics."
Unable to cross-examine witnesses or present evidence due to illness, Strawn was absent when final orders were issued. The court granted her former spouse custody and ordered Strawn to pay child support, sell her residence, and pay $10,000 in attorney fees for "intransigence." These fees were deducted from back-support owed to the state.
The brief argues that the central legal question concerns whether a court may enter final dissolution, parenting, support, property, and fee orders when one party cannot participate in the trial's dispositive phase.
Evaluation Disputes
The shift in custody relied heavily on the behavioral assessment by Dr. Singer. The brief argues that the evaluation assigned the former spouse a "Level 0" threat rating, a classification the filing asserts does not exist under the Washington Administrative Code. The document contends this allowed the evaluator to "recommend away" court-ordered domestic violence treatment.
Regulatory and judicial bodies have previously scrutinized this methodology. Division I of the Court of Appeals overturned a separate King County ruling due to "significant flaws" in Dr. Singer's assessments. In that unpublished opinion, the appellate court found that Dr. Singer violated WAC standards by reducing the need for treatment based solely on a lack of arrests or criminal charges.
A Department of Social and Health Services investigation in late 2025 resulted in a "founded" complaint against Dr. Singer's program for documentation failures.
State review panels concluded that the clinical evaluation program could explain orally why it suggested mental health treatment rather than domestic violence intervention, yet this reasoning was missing from the formal written document. State standards classified this omission as inadequate.
Broader investigations and the current appeal suggest a recurring tendency to overlook or reject input from the victim in these proceedings.
A formal complaint filed with the Department of Social and Health Services accused the evaluator of not adequately summarizing the victim’s statements found in court records.
While the trial court recorded that the victim, a Port Angeles woman, "declined to respond" to the evaluator, her appellate filing claims she made persistent efforts over several months to submit a statement, which the evaluator allegedly turned down.
The appeal argues that these issues are worsened by a record review that was both incomplete and skewed.
A sworn statement from a local psychologist, referenced in the legal brief, points to "fatal flaws" in the evaluator’s work. According to the declaration, the evaluator did not reach out to the victim to gather collateral information, a requirement mandated statewide.
The local psychologist also noted that the evaluator’s analysis relied solely on documents supplied by the ex-husband and his legal team. Key evidence, including the victim’s petition for a domestic violence protection order, photos of her injuries, police reports from 2016, and a witness statement about a gun incident, were left out of the review.
The brief also raises concerns about "phantom" corrective reports. After the state agency upheld its complaint, the evaluator was required to modify his assessment pursuant to a state-mandated corrective action plan.
When the victim’s attorney sought this required document, the evaluator reportedly provided a screenshot stating it had been filed under a specific King County docket sub-number. The appeal and the attorney’s sworn statement argue this sub-number is a "phantom," as it does not match any visible entry on the public court docket.
Reversing the Narrative of Abuse
The most striking element of the appeal is the court’s complete reversal of the domestic violence dynamic.
Before the dissolution orders were issued, the victim held a valid, fully adjudicated domestic violence protection order safeguarding her and her children from her ex-husband.
Following the one-sided trial in June, the judge used the uncontested testimony to effectively rewrite the history of the relationship. The court imposed statutory restrictions on the victim, identifying her as the abuser, asserting she engaged in coercive control, and finding her abuse claims lacked credibility.
The victim’s brief strongly contends that a court cannot fairly "invert the domestic-violence narrative through a final trial process in which only one side meaningfully participated."
Next Steps
The victim is requesting that the Court of Appeals completely vacate the final orders from June 2025 and send the case back for a new trial before a different judge.
The appeal poses a significant question for the Washington state judiciary: Does a court’s power to manage its docket and prevent delays outweigh a mother’s fundamental right to due process?
Currently, the victim and her children remain in a difficult legal holding pattern, waiting for a higher court to decide if justice was truly served when only one party was permitted to speak.
The provided text consists of user interface elements and standard web page instructions rather than a full news narrative. Specifically, it advises against treating the article as a sales pitch or using it primarily to drive ad revenue. It also includes a prompt to duplicate the story’s HTML code and directs readers to reach out via a contact link if they have inquiries.