. . . + . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . # . . . . . . # . . . . ### . . . L. . . . ### . . . . . "#:. .:##"##:. .:#" . . j. . t EW: . ,ft . . . "#:. .:##"##:. .:#" . . . . "####"###"####" . EW, .. Ej E##; t#E . . . "####"###"####" . . "#:. .:#"###"#:. .:#" . . . E##j . ;W, E#, E###t t#E . "#:. .:#"###"#:. .:#" . . . . "#########"#########" . . E###D. . j##, E#t E#fE#f t#E . "#########"#########" . . . "#:. "####"###"####" .:#" . . E#jG#W; G###, E#t E#t D#G t#E . . "#:. "####"###"####" .:#" . . . . "#######""##"##""#######" . E#t t##f . :E####, E#t E#t f#E. t#E . . "#######""##"##""#######" . ."##"#####"#####"##" . . E#t :K#E: . ;W#DG##, E#t E#t t#K: t#E . . . ."##"#####"#####"##" . . . "#:. ... .:##"###"###"##:. ... .:#" . . E#KDDDD###i j###DW##, E#t E#t ;#W,t#E . "#:. ... .:##"###"###"##:. ... .:#" . . "#######"##"#####"##"#######" . . E#f,t#Wi,,, G##i,,G##, E#t E#t :K#D#E . . "#######"##"#####"##"#######" . . . . "#####""#######""#####" . . . E#t ;#W: :K#K: L##, E#t E#t .E##E . . "#####""#######""#####" . . . " 000 " . . . DWi ,KK: ;##D. L##, E#t .. G#E . . " 000 " . . . . . 000 . . . ,,, .,, ,;. fE . . . . 000 . . . .. .. ..................O000O........................ ...... ... . .................................. , . .. .. ................O000O................. https://rain.kys/ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ rees >< slit >< cult >< cpp >< mdma ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ███████████████████ █████ ███████████████████ ███████████████████ Rain █████ BY: rees, slit, cult, cpp ███████████████████ ███████████████████ ▄███████▄ ███████████████████ ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████ █████████████████ ████████████████ ███████████████ ██████████████ █████████████ ████████████ ███████████ ██████████ Reasoning ████████ ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾ Hello fellow com kids, This whores dox is being dropped because she runs around doxing and packing com being a ewhore and talks to guys because they are desperate for esex.. ░▒▓█████▓▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████ ▒▓███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄ ▄██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████▀ ▀███████ ▓███░ ░███▓ ██▓█ ██▓█ ▓▓▓▓ MMP""MM""YMM db `7MM"""Yp, `7MMF' `7MM"""YMM .g8""8q. `7MM"""YMM ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ P' MM `7 ;MM: MM Yb MM MM `7 .dP' `YM. MM `7 ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ MM ,V^MM. MM dP MM MM d dM' `MM MM d ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ MM ,M `MM MM"""bg. MM MMmmMM MM MM MM""MM ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ MM AbmmmqMA MM `Y MM , MM Y , MM. ,MP MM Y ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ MM A' VML MM ,9 MM ,M MM ,M `Mb. ,dP' MM ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ .JMML..AMA. .AMMA..JMMmmmd9 .JMMmmmmMMM .JMMmmmmMMM `"bmmd"' .JMML. ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ .g8"""bgd .g8""8q. `7MN. `7MF'MMP""MM""YMM `7MM"""YMM `7MN. `7MF'MMP""MM""YMM .M"""bgd ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ .dP' `M .dP' `YM. MMN. M P' MM `7 MM `7 MMN. M P' MM `7 ,MI "Y ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ dM' ` dM' `MM M YMb M MM MM d M YMb M MM `MMb. ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ MM MM MM M `MN. M MM MMmmMM M `MN. M MM `YMMNq. ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ MM. MM. ,MP M `MM.M MM MM Y , M `MM.M MM . `MM ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ `Mb. ,' `Mb. ,dP' M YMM MM MM ,M M YMM MM Mb dM ▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ `"bmmmd' `"bmmd"' .JML. YM .JMML. .JMMmmmmMMM .JML. YM .JMML. P"Ybmmd" ▓▓▓▓ ▓███ ██▓█ ▓███░ ░███▓ ██████▄ ▄███████ █████████████████████████████████▓▒░▒▓██████████████████▓▒▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓████████████████████████▓ ▓████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓▒ ▓█▓▒░▀ ▀▓█▓▒ ▓███░ ▒▓█▓▒ ▓███ ░███▓ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███ 0x01 Personal Information........ ░███▓ ▓███░ 0x02 Previous Addresses.......... ███▓ ▓███░ 0x03 Previous Numbers.......... ███▓ ▓███ 0x04 Databreaches Information.......... ███▓ ▓███ 0x05 Family Members Information.. ███▓ ▓███░ 0x06 House Information........... ░███▓ ▓███ 0x07 IP Information.............. ███▓ ▓███░ 0x08 Social Media Accounts....... ░███▓ ▓███ 0x09 Criminal Records............ ███▓ ▓███ 0x12 Extras...................... ███▓ ▓███ 0x13 Credits..................... ███▓ ▓███░ ░███▓ █████████████████████████████████▓▒░▒▓██████████████████▓▒▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓████████████████████████▓ ▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████▀ ▀███████ ▓███░ 0x01 ░███▓ ██▓█ ██▓█ ▓▓▓▓ ███▓ ▓███░ `7MM"""Mq.`7MM"""YMM `7MM"""Mq. .M"""bgd .g8""8q. `7MN. `7MF' db `7MMF' ███▓ ▓███ MM `MM. MM `7 MM `MM. ,MI "Y .dP' `YM. MMN. M ;MM: MM ░███▓ ▓███ MM ,M9 MM d MM ,M9 `MMb. dM' `MM M YMb M ,V^MM. MM ███▓ ▓███ MMmmdM9 MMmmMM MMmmdM9 `YMMNq. MM MM M `MN. M ,M `MM MM ███▓ ▓███░ MM MM Y , MM YM. . `MM MM. ,MP M `MM.M AbmmmqMA MM , ███▓ ▓███ MM MM ,M MM `Mb. Mb dM `Mb. ,dP' M YMM A' VML MM ,M ░███▓ ▓███ .JMML. .JMMmmmmMMM .JMML. .JMM.P"Ybmmd" `"bmmd"' .JML. YM .AMA. .AMMA..JMMmmmmMMM ███▓ ▓███░ ███▓ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███ `7MMF'`7MN. `7MF'`7MM"""YMM .g8""8q. `7MM"""Mq. `7MMM. ,MMF' db MMP""MM""YMM `7MMF' .g8""8q. `7MN. `7MF' ░███▓ ▓███ MM MMN. M MM `7 .dP' `YM. MM `MM. MMMb dPMM ;MM: P' MM `7 MM .dP' `YM. MMN. M ███▓ ▓███░ MM M YMb M MM d dM' `MM MM ,M9 M YM ,M MM ,V^MM. MM MM dM' `MM M YMb M ███▓ ▓███ MM M `MN. M MM""MM MM MM MMmmdM9 M Mb M' MM ,M `MM MM MM MM MM M `MN. M ░███▓ ▓███ MM M `MM.M MM Y MM. ,MP MM YM. M YM.P' MM AbmmmqMA MM MM MM. ,MP M `MM.M ███▓ ▓███ MM M YMM MM `Mb. ,dP' MM `Mb. M `YM' MM A' VML MM MM `Mb. ,dP' M YMM ███▓ ▓███ .JMML..JML. YM .JMML. `"bmmd"' .JMML. .JMM..JML. `' .JMML..AMA. .AMMA..JMML. .JMML. `"bmmd"' .JML. YM ░███▓ ▓███░ ███▓ ▓███ ██▓█ ▓███░ ░███▓ ██████▄ ▄███████ █████████████████████████████████▓▒░▒▓██████████████████▓▒▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓████████████████████▓ ▓████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓▒ Full Name: Meredith Annemarie Cottrell Age: 16 Gender: Female Ip: 69.115.137.60 Number: (732) 363-2154 ░▒▓█████▓▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████ ▒▓███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄ ▄██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████▀ ▀███████ ▓███░ 0x02 ░███▓ ██▓█ ██▓█ ▓▓▓▓ ███▓ ▓███ `7MM"""Mq.`7MM"""Mq. `7MM"""YMM `7MMF' `7MF'`7MMF' .g8""8q. `7MMF' `7MF'.M"""bgd ░███▓ ▓███░ MM `MM. MM `MM. MM `7 `MA ,V MM .dP' `YM. MM M ,MI "Y ███▓ ▓███ MM ,M9 MM ,M9 MM d VM: ,V MM dM' `MM MM M `MMb. ███▓ ▓███ MMmmdM9 MMmmdM9 MMmmMM MM. M' MM MM MM MM M `YMMNq. ███▓ ▓███░ MM MM YM. MM Y , `MM A' MM MM. ,MP MM M . `MM ░███▓ ▓███ MM MM `Mb. MM ,M :MM; MM `Mb. ,dP' YM. ,M Mb dM ███▓ ▓███ .JMML. .JMML. .JMM..JMMmmmmMMM VF .JMML. `"bmmd"' `bmmmmd"' P"Ybmmd" ███▓ ▓███░ ░███▓ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███ db `7MM"""Yb. `7MM"""Yb. `7MM"""Mq. `7MM"""YMM .M"""bgd .M"""bgd `7MM"""YMM .M"""bgd ███▓ ▓███ ;MM: MM `Yb. MM `Yb. MM `MM. MM `7 ,MI "Y ,MI "Y MM `7 ,MI "Y ░███▓ ▓███░ ,V^MM. MM `Mb MM `Mb MM ,M9 MM d `MMb. `MMb. MM d `MMb. ███▓ ▓███ ,M `MM MM MM MM MM MMmmdM9 MMmmMM `YMMNq. `YMMNq. MMmmMM `YMMNq. ███▓ ▓███ AbmmmqMA MM ,MP MM ,MP MM YM. MM Y , . `MM . `MM MM Y , . `MM ███▓ ▓███ A' VML MM ,dP' MM ,dP' MM `Mb. MM ,M Mb dM Mb dM MM ,M Mb dM ░███▓ ▓███░ .AMA. .AMMA..JMMmmmdP' .JMMmmmdP' .JMML. .JMM..JMMmmmmMMM P"Ybmmd" P"Ybmmd" .JMMmmmmMMM P"Ybmmd" ███▓ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███ ██▓█ ▓███░ ░███▓ ██████▄ ▄███████ █████████████████████████████████▓▒░▒▓██████████████████▓▒▓███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓███████████████████▓ 267 Maxim Rd, Howell, NJ 07731 (current address) 10 Pinehurst Dr Apt 3, Lakewood, NJ 08701 13815 E 107th Ave, Commerce City, CO 80022 404 Arcadia Ct, Jackson, NJ 08527 313 Friendship Rd, Howell, NJ 07731 58 Seminole Dr, Lakewood, NJ 08701 72 Cherry St, Lakewood, NJ 08701 1107 Deer Path, Lakewood, NJ 08701 30312 PO Box, Bethesda, MD 20824 1101 Robin Dr Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Jul 2001 - Dec 2016) 801 Park Ave Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Feb 1995 - Dec 2016) PO Box 122 Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Nov 1993 - Dec 2016) 69 Old Tavern Rd Howell, NJ 07731 (Aug 2014) 313 Friendship Rd Howell, NJ 07731 (Aug 2012 - Sep 2012) 900 River Ave Lakewood, NJ 08701 (May 2002 - May 2012) 160 Chestnut St Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Sep 2009) 1153 Anthony Ct Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Jan 2008) 1525 Prospect St #3 Lakewood, NJ 08701 (May 2007) 29 Cherry St Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Nov 2000) 58 Seminole Dr Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Mar 1999) 1094 Brook Rd Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Mar 1998 - Dec 1998) 244 Joe Parker Rd Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Dec 1998) 1317 Marshall St Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Nov 1997) 1 Ventura Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Oct 1992 - Dec 1996) 72 Cherry St Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Mar 1996 - Jul 1996) 1 Ventura Dr Lakewood, NJ 08701 (Oct 1992 - Feb 1996) ▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████▀ ▀███████ ▓███░ 0x03 ░███▓ ██▓█ ██▓█ ▄███████▄ ▄█ █▄ ▄██████▄ ███▄▄▄▄ ▄████████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███▀▀▀██▄ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ █▀ ███ ███ ▄███▄▄▄▄███▄▄ ███ ███ ███ ███ ▄███▄▄▄ ▀█████████▀ ▀▀███▀▀▀▀███▀ ███ ███ ███ ███ ▀▀███▀▀▀ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ █▄ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ▄████▀ ███ █▀ ▀██████▀ ▀█ █▀ ██████████ ███▄▄▄▄ ███ █▄ ▄▄▄▄███▄▄▄▄ ▀█████████▄ ▄████████ ▄████████ ▄████████ ███▀▀▀██▄ ███ ███ ▄██▀▀▀███▀▀▀██▄ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ █▀ ███ ███ ███ █▀ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ▄███▄▄▄██▀ ▄███▄▄▄ ▄███▄▄▄▄██▀ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ▀▀███▀▀▀██▄ ▀▀███▀▀▀ ▀▀███▀▀▀▀▀ ▀███████████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ██▄ ███ █▄ ▀███████████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ▄█ ███ ▀█ █▀ ████████▀ ▀█ ███ █▀ ▄█████████▀ ██████████ ███ ███ ▄████████▀ ███ ███ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███ ██▓█ ▓███░ ░███▓ ██████▄ ▄███████ █████████████████████████████████▓▒░▒▓██████████████████▓▒▓███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓███████████████████▓ (732) 363-2154 (718) 338-6059 (718) 338-5043 (917) 687-4058 (732) 363-2154 - Landline (848) 448-1768 - Wireless (848) 333-7223 - Wireless (732) 942-8036 - Landline (732) 675-8962 - Wireless (732) 742-8132 - Wireless (732) 942-8799 - Landline (732) 675-8962 - Wireless (732) 942-8036 - Landline (732) 942-8036 - Landline (732) 938-5793 - Wireless (732) 742-8132 - Wireless ▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████▀ ▀███████ ▓███░ 0x04 ░███▓ ██▓█ ██▓█ ████████▄ ▄████████ ███ ▄████████ ███ ▀███ ███ ███ ▀█████████▄ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ▀███▀▀██ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ▀ ███ ███ ███ ███ ▀███████████ ███ ▀███████████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ▄███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ████████▀ ███ █▀ ▄████▀ ███ █▀ ▀█████████▄ ▄████████ ▄████████ ▄████████ ▄████████ ▄█ █▄ ▄████████ ▄████████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ █▀ ███ ███ ███ █▀ ███ ███ ███ █▀ ███ █▀ ▄███▄▄▄██▀ ▄███▄▄▄▄██▀ ▄███▄▄▄ ███ ███ ███ ▄███▄▄▄▄███▄▄ ▄███▄▄▄ ███ ▀▀███▀▀▀██▄ ▀▀███▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀███▀▀▀ ▀███████████ ███ ▀▀███▀▀▀▀███▀ ▀▀███▀▀▀ ▀███████████ ███ ██▄ ▀███████████ ███ █▄ ███ ███ ███ █▄ ███ ███ ███ █▄ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ▄█ ███ ▄█████████▀ ███ ███ ██████████ ███ █▀ ████████▀ ███ █▀ ██████████ ▄████████▀ ███ ███ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███ ██▓█ ▓███░ ░███▓ ██████▄ ▄███████ █████████████████████████████████▓▒░▒▓██████████████████▓▒▓███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓███████████████████▓ mcottrell85@gmail.com ~ mcottrell85@gmail.com,69.115.137.60,rentownhomelistings.com,2015-09-09 11:56:30,Melissa,Cottrell,,,Brooklyn,NY,11225,,,, {"_id":{"$oid":"5817b84fec3d353334aa39c4"},"ScrubID":{"$binary":"Lpco4MT280qLRqLdNdz3ZQ==","$type":"03"},"TokenID":{"$binary":"le1g1e+ZE0yJUV6zo1YtnQ==","$type":"03"},"EmailAddress":"mcottrell85@gmail.com","IsMXOnly":false,"IsMxStandard":true,"CheckFormatError":false,"CheckForeignDomain":false,"CheckThreatString":false,"CheckDeptEmail":false,"CheckThreatEnding":false,"CheckDomainBlacklist":false,"CheckBotClickers":false,"CheckRealTraps":true,"CheckBounces":true,"CheckComplainers":false,"CheckLegacy1999":false,"CheckLegacy2005":false,"CreateDate":{"$date":"2013-07-07T18:42:09.390Z"},"RowID":{"$numberLong":"1655611"}} mcottrell85@gmail.com:nov192005 {"_id":{"$oid":"581b35bec4898dec737efe19"},"ScrubID":"{E028972E-F6C4-4AF3-8B46-A2DD35DCF765}","TokenID":"{D560ED95-99EF-4C13-8951-5EB3A3562D9D}","EmailAddress":"mcottrell85@gmail.com","IsMXOnly":"False","IsMxStandard":"True","CheckFormatError":"False","CheckForeignDomain":"False","CheckThreatString":"False","CheckDeptEmail":"False","CheckThreatEnding":"False","CheckDomainBlacklist":"False","CheckBotClickers":"False","CheckRealTraps":"True","CheckBounces":"True","CheckComplainers":"False","CheckLegacy1999":"False","CheckLegacy2005":"False","CreateDate":"2013-07-07 11:42:09.390000000"} {"_id":{"$oid":"57b91ed58f3712e07a1749aa"},"updatedAt":{"$date":"2016-08-28T09:43:00.103Z"},"createdAt":{"$date":"2016-08-21T03:24:05.155Z"},"email":"mcottrell85@gmail.com","ip":"173.199.122.70","first_name":"melissa","last_name":"cottrell","address1":"","city":"","state":"","zip":"","__v":0,"gender":"F"} babyb1aze@aol.com ~ babyb1aze@aol.com:melissa 26569949:babyb1aze@aol.com:msboss85:0x322B96AED7817234C0986080F3C7E417C85FC197:'' babyb1aze@aol.com:alexis0553 babyb1aze@aol.com:0bf1fa68ada5e4c9ad56efc3ee2b5deabf54e0e0:4164cde629561bcbde81ac2ca3db51f600377a19:20061112192458 (77907693,'babyb1aze@aol.com','JMH7uMgyOrs=','Cook') babyb1aze@aol.com:delmar racer53t@aol.com ~ (100141525,'racer53t@aol.com','cN4sJBSMK6Y=','jordan') racer53t@aol.com:balla420 racer53t@aol.com:hope7472 racer53t@aol.com:$2a$10$ulDc3/0sGF4idv4xb9P2C.QBl8oExbN.o0652PSho9qQCti0RTdIa 54815543:racer53t@aol.com:54815543:0x72D4EBC0F6348C7C2EC5F8E8B19B772141E6C2AA:'' 100141525,,racer53t@aol.com,cN4sJBSMK6Y=,jordan racer53t@aol.com:jayda72 (7059562,'Terri','Cottrell',NULL,'racer53t@aol.com','!eb72af028d05e4c045ff6a77eb11ab65','0000-00-00','2016-11-06',1000,0,0,0,0.00,1,'us',20,'check',0,0,'',0,'267 Maxim rd','','Howell','NJ','07731',0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0) 3468290 | racer53t@aol.com | 2017-04-23 01:04:47 (526651,0,1,'racer53t@aol.com','','',NULL,'852ff516f2152f96098afab634d72604fad3fc66','','','','','',NULL,NULL,NULL,'2015-08-03 ▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████▀ ▀███████ ▓███░ 0x05 ░███▓ ██▓█ ██▓█ ▓▓▓▓ ███▓ ▓███ `7MM"""YMM db `7MMM. ,MMF'`7MMF'`7MMF' `YMM' `MM' ░███▓ ▓███░ MM `7 ;MM: MMMb dPMM MM MM VMA ,V ███▓ ▓███ MM d ,V^MM. M YM ,M MM MM MM VMA ,V ███▓ ▓███ MM""MM ,M `MM M Mb M' MM MM MM VMMP ███▓ ▓███ MM Y AbmmmqMA M YM.P' MM MM MM , MM ░███▓ ▓███░ MM A' VML M `YM' MM MM MM ,M MM ███▓ ▓███ .JMML..AMA. .AMMA..JML. `' .JMML..JMML..JMMmmmmMMM .JMML. ███▓ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███░ ░███▓ ▓███ `7MMM. ,MMF'`7MM"""YMM `7MMM. ,MMF'`7MM"""Yp, `7MM"""YMM `7MM"""Mq. .M"""bgd ███▓ ▓███ MMMb dPMM MM `7 MMMb dPMM MM Yb MM `7 MM `MM. ,MI "Y ███▓ ▓███ M YM ,M MM MM d M YM ,M MM MM dP MM d MM ,M9 `MMb. ███▓ ▓███░ M Mb M' MM MMmmMM M Mb M' MM MM"""bg. MMmmMM MMmmdM9 `YMMNq. ░███▓ ▓███ M YM.P' MM MM Y , M YM.P' MM MM `Y MM Y , MM YM. . `MM ███▓ ▓███ M `YM' MM MM ,M M `YM' MM MM ,9 MM ,M MM `Mb. Mb dM ███▓ ▓███░ .JML. `' .JMML..JMMmmmmMMM .JML. `' .JMML..JMMmmmd9 .JMMmmmmMMM .JMML. .JMM.P"Ybmmd" ███▓ ▓███ ░███▓ ▓███ ██▓█ ▓███░ ░███▓ ██████▄ ▄███████ █████████████████████████████████▓▒░▒▓██████████████████▓▒▓███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓███████████████████▓ Associates of Thomas Cottrell in Howell, NJ Christopher Clarke Bonnie Gist Frank Clarke Gregory Cooke Gregory Durst Ilona King Laurence Clayton Relatives of Thomas Cottrell in Lakewood, NJ Amanda Cottrell Jessica Cherboni Kristina Cottrell Melissa Cottrell Ryan Cottrell Samuel Cottrell Terri Cottrell Thomas Cottrell Albert Cottrell David Cottrell Deborah Pryor Francis Cottrell George Cottrell Gloria Cottrell Hope Cottrell Jennifer Barker Jessica Cottrell John Roberts Joseph Cottrell Justin Roberts Justin Roberts Mary Cottrell Megan Cottrell Ray Cherboni William Cottrell Brittany Sprewell Christopher Cottrell David Barker David Barker James Morey John Roberts Jourdyn Sprewell Lorraine Cottrell Lorrie Cottrell Marcia Roberts Maria Roberts Monica Watson Richard Cottrell Terran Sprewell Thomas J Cottrell is 29 years old. Currently Thomas lives at the address 900 River Ave, Lakewood NJ 08701. Thomas has lived at this Lakewood, NJ address for about 9 years, after moving in around May of 2012. Thomas previously lived at 313 Friendship Rd, Howell NJ 07731, starting in September of 2011. Public records do not indicate that Thomas J Cottrell is currently married. The following people are relatives or close associates of Thomas: Amanda Cottrell, Jessica Cherboni, Kristina Cottrell, Melissa Cottrell, Ryan Cottrell, Samuel Cottrell, Terri Cottrell, Thomas Cottrell, Albert Cottrell, David Cottrell and Deborah Pryor. Thomas's current phone number is (732) 675-8962. This Wireless number was issued by 'Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless - NJ', first reported in public records on September of 2011. Past phone numbers for Thomas include (732) 942-8036. Neighbors of Thomas Cottrell living at 267 Maxim Rd, Howell NJ 07731 Elizabeth Sullivan 276 Maxim Rd Howell NJ 07731 Barbara Ebner (732) 887-8851 277 Maxim Rd Howell NJ 07731 Louie Chiang (732) 938-9688 256 Maxim Rd Howell NJ 07731 Victor Keys (732) 919-0659 244 Maxim Rd Howell NJ 07731 William Johnson (732) 938-7758 291 Maxim Rd Howell NJ 07731 Jillian Gibb (908) 415-3923 238 Maxim Rd Howell NJ 07731 Zachary Hj 299 Maxim Rd Howell NJ 07731 John Martin 232 Maxim Rd Howell NJ 07731 Daniel Timmerman (732) 239-0812 229 Maxim Rd Howell NJ 07731 Neighbors of Thomas Cottrell living at 900 River Ave, Lakewood NJ 08701 Co Flooring 916 River Ave Lakewood NJ 08701 Lalia Ellington 925 River Ave Lakewood NJ 08701 Med Lakewood (908) 363-9440 870 River Ave Lakewood NJ 08701 ▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████▀ ▀███████ ▓███░ 0x06 ░███▓ ██▓█ ██▓█ ▓▓▓▓ ███▓ ▓███░ `7MMF' `7MMF' .g8""8q. `7MMF' `7MF'.M"""bgd `7MM"""YMM ░███▓ ▓███ MM MM .dP' `YM. MM M ,MI "Y MM `7 ███▓ ▓███ MM MM dM' `MM MM M `MMb. MM d ███▓ ▓███ MMmmmmmmMM MM MM MM M `YMMNq. MMmmMM ███▓ ▓███░ MM MM MM. ,MP MM M . `MM MM Y , ░███▓ ▓███ MM MM `Mb. ,dP' YM. ,M Mb dM MM ,M ███▓ ▓███ .JMML. .JMML. `"bmmd"' `bmmmmd"' P"Ybmmd" .JMMmmmmMMM ███▓ ▓███░ ░███▓ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███ `7MMF'`7MN. `7MF'`7MM"""YMM .g8""8q. `7MM"""Mq. `7MMM. ,MMF' db MMP""MM""YMM `7MMF' .g8""8q. `7MN. `7MF' ███▓ ▓███ MM MMN. M MM `7 .dP' `YM. MM `MM. MMMb dPMM ;MM: P' MM `7 MM .dP' `YM. MMN. M ███▓ ▓███░ MM M YMb M MM d dM' `MM MM ,M9 M YM ,M MM ,V^MM. MM MM dM' `MM M YMb M ███▓ ▓███ MM M `MN. M MM""MM MM MM MMmmdM9 M Mb M' MM ,M `MM MM MM MM MM M `MN. M ░███▓ ▓███ MM M `MM.M MM Y MM. ,MP MM YM. M YM.P' MM AbmmmqMA MM MM MM. ,MP M `MM.M ███▓ ▓███ MM M YMM MM `Mb. ,dP' MM `Mb. M `YM' MM A' VML MM MM `Mb. ,dP' M YMM ███▓ ▓███ .JMML..JML. YM .JMML. `"bmmd"' .JMML. .JMM..JML. `' .JMML..AMA. .AMMA..JMML. .JMML. `"bmmd"' .JML. YM ███▓ ▓███░ ░███▓ ▓███ ██▓█ ▓███░ ░███▓ ██████▄ ▄███████ █████████████████████████████████▓▒░▒▓██████████████████▓▒▓███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓███████████████████▓ Parcel ID 1321_51_33 Parcel Address 267 MAXIM RD Parcel Address City HOWELL Parcel Address Zip Code 07731-8739 Owner Information Owner Name COTTRELL, THOMAS & RYAN Mailing Address Mailing Address 267 MAXIM RD Mailing Address City HOWELL Mailing Address State NJ Mailing Address ZIP Code 07731 Property Sales & Value Last Sale Price $390,000 Last Sale Date 2016-07-27 County Provided Values Parcel Value Type NET TAXABLE VALUE Total Parcel Value $501,800 Improvement Value $356,900 Land Value $144,900 Tax Information Annual Tax Bill 12,981.89 Zoning, Land Use & Vacancy Parcel Use Code 2 Standardized Land Use Codes Land Use Code: Activity 1100 Land Use Code Description: Activity Household Land Use Code: Function 1100 Land Use Code Description: Function Private household Land Use Code: Structure 1000 Land Use Code Description: Structure Residential buildings Land Use Code: Site 6000 Land Use Code Description: Site Developed site with buildings CASS Error Codes Unlock with Pro Structure Details Structure Details Structure Year Built 2003 Loveland Calculated Data Loveland Calculated Building Count Unlock with Pro Loveland Calculated Building Footprint Square Feet Unlock with Pro Geographic Information County-Provided Acres 5 Centroid Coordinates 40.153904, -74.178996 Opportunity Zones Federal Qualified Opportunity Zone No Census Geographies Census 2010 Blockgroup 340258115022 Census 2010 Tract 34025811502 Loveland Calculated Data Calculated Acres 4.95358 Calculated Parcel Sq Ft 215,872 Plat, Block, Lot, Legal Data Book 9188 Page 2213 Block 51 Lot 33 Additional Items Primary Address Source county;accuzip Latitude 40.153904 Longitude -74.178996 County/Municipality Code 1321 Building Description 1SF Land Description 5.0 AC Building Class 17 Number of Residential Dwelling Units 01 Mailing Address City and State HOWELL NJ LL_UUID 72e231ed-df33-4150-a6d1-5e49ab6ce586 ▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████▀ ▀███████ ▓███░ 0x07 ░███▓ ██▓█ ██▓█ ▓▓▓▓ ███▓ ▓███ `7MMF' `7MM"""Mq. ░███▓ ▓███░ MM MM `MM. ███▓ ▓███ MM MM ,M9 ███▓ ▓███ MM MMmmdM9 ███▓ ▓███ MM MM ░███▓ ▓███░ MM MM ███▓ ▓███ .JMML. .JMML. ███▓ ▓███ ░███▓ ▓███░ ███▓ ▓███ `7MMF'`7MN. `7MF'`7MM"""YMM .g8""8q. `7MM"""Mq. `7MMM. ,MMF' db MMP""MM""YMM `7MMF' .g8""8q. `7MN. `7MF' ███▓ ▓███ MM MMN. M MM `7 .dP' `YM. MM `MM. MMMb dPMM ;MM: P' MM `7 MM .dP' `YM. MMN. M ███▓ ▓███░ MM M YMb M MM d dM' `MM MM ,M9 M YM ,M MM ,V^MM. MM MM dM' `MM M YMb M ███▓ ▓███ MM M `MN. M MM""MM MM MM MMmmdM9 M Mb M' MM ,M `MM MM MM MM MM M `MN. M ░███▓ ▓███ MM M `MM.M MM Y MM. ,MP MM YM. M YM.P' MM AbmmmqMA MM MM MM. ,MP M `MM.M ███▓ ▓███ MM M YMM MM `Mb. ,dP' MM `Mb. M `YM' MM A' VML MM MM `Mb. ,dP' M YMM ███▓ ▓███ .JMML..JML. YM .JMML. `"bmmd"' .JMML. .JMM..JML. `' .JMML..AMA. .AMMA..JMML. .JMML. `"bmmd"' .JML. YM ███▓ ▓███░ ░███▓ ▓███ ██▓█ ▓███░ ░███▓ ██████▄ ▄███████ █████████████████████████████████▓▒░▒▓██████████████████▓▒▓███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓███████████████████▓ IP Location via IP2Location(PRODUCT: DB, MAY 01 2022) IP: 69.115.137.60 COUNTRY: United States of America COUNTRY ISO: US STATE: New Jersey CITY: Trenton POSTAL CODE: 08601 LATITUDE: 40.2170 LONGITUDE: -74.7429 ORGANIZATION: Optimum Online ISP: Optimum Online view map IP Location via DB-IP(PRODUCT: API, REAL-TIME) IP: 69.115.137.60 COUNTRY: United States COUNTRY ISO: US STATE: New Jersey CITY: Jackson Township POSTAL CODE: N/A LATITUDE: 40.0919 LONGITUDE: -74.3587 ASN: 6128 AS-Name: CABLE-NET-1 IS PROXY: No IS CRAWLER: No THREAT LEVEL: low ORGANIZATION: Cablevision Systems Corp. ISP: Cablevision Systems Corp. view map IP Location via IpInfo(PRODUCT: API, REAL-TIME) IP: 69.115.137.60 COUNTRY: United States COUNTRY ISO: US STATE: New Jersey CITY: Toms River POSTAL CODE: 08753 LATITUDE: 39.9537 LONGITUDE: -74.1979 ASN: AS6128 ORGANIZATION: Cablevision Systems Corp. view map IP Geo Location via IPGeoLocation.io(PRODUCT: API, REAL-TIME) IP: 69.115.137.60 COUNTRY: N/A COUNTRY ISO: N/A STATE: N/A CITY: N/A POSTAL CODE: N/A LATITUDE: N/A LONGITUDE: N/A ASN: N/A IS BOT: N/A IS PROXY: N/A PROXY TYPE: N/A IS SPAM: N/A IS TOR: N/A ORGANIZATION: N/A ISP: N/A # start NetRange: 69.112.0.0 - 69.127.255.255 CIDR: 69.112.0.0/12 NetName: NETBLK-OOL-6BLK NetHandle: NET-69-112-0-0-1 Parent: NET69 (NET-69-0-0-0-0) NetType: Direct Allocation OriginAS: AS6148 Organization: Optimum Online (OPTO) RegDate: 2004-01-15 Updated: 2012-03-02 Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/ip/69.112.0.0 OrgName: Optimum Online OrgId: OPTO Address: 111 new south RD City: Hicksville StateProv: NY PostalCode: 11801 Country: US RegDate: 1999-07-29 Updated: 2011-12-20 Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/OPTO OrgAbuseHandle: OOLAB-ARIN OrgAbuseName: OOL Hostmaster OrgAbusePhone: +1-516-803-2400 OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@cv.net OrgAbuseRef: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/OOLAB-ARIN OrgTechHandle: OH4-ORG-ARIN OrgTechName: OOL Hostmaster OrgTechPhone: +1-516-803-2300 OrgTechEmail: hostmaster@cv.net OrgTechRef: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/OH4-ORG-ARIN RTechHandle: OH4-ORG-ARIN RTechName: OOL Hostmaster RTechPhone: +1-516-803-2300 RTechEmail: hostmaster@cv.net RTechRef: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/OH4-ORG-ARIN # end # start NetRange: 69.115.136.0 - 69.115.143.255 CIDR: 69.115.136.0/21 NetName: OOL-CPE-JCSNNJ-69-115-136-0-21 NetHandle: NET-69-115-136-0-1 Parent: NETBLK-OOL-6BLK (NET-69-112-0-0-1) NetType: Reassigned OriginAS: AS6128 Customer: Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems) (C05182611) RegDate: 2014-07-23 Updated: 2014-07-23 Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/ip/69.115.136.0 CustName: Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems) Address: 111 New South Road City: Hicksville StateProv: NY PostalCode: 11801 Country: US RegDate: 2014-07-23 Updated: 2014-07-23 Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/C05182611 OrgAbuseHandle: OOLAB-ARIN OrgAbuseName: OOL Hostmaster OrgAbusePhone: +1-516-803-2400 OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@cv.net OrgAbuseRef: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/OOLAB-ARIN OrgTechHandle: OH4-ORG-ARIN OrgTechName: OOL Hostmaster OrgTechPhone: +1-516-803-2300 OrgTechEmail: hostmaster@cv.net OrgTechRef: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/OH4-ORG-ARIN RTechHandle: OH4-ORG-ARIN RTechName: OOL Hostmaster RTechPhone: +1-516-803-2300 RTechEmail: hostmaster@cv.net RTechRef: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/OH4-ORG-ARIN LOCATION City Cassville Region New Jersey (NJ) Postal code 08527 Country United States (US) Continent North America (NA) Metro code 501 Coordinates 40.1243 (lat) / -74.3022 (long) Time 2022-05-09 21:08:03 (America/New_York) NETWORK IP address 69.115.137.60 Hostname ool-4573893c.dyn.optonline.net Provider CABLE-NET-1 ASN 6128 # end ▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████▀ ▀███████ ▓███░ 0x08 ░███▓ ██▓█ ██▓█ ▓▓▓▓ ███▓ ▓███ .M"""bgd .g8""8q. .g8"""bgd `7MMF' db `7MMF' ███▓ ▓███░ ,MI "Y .dP' `YM. .dP' `M MM ;MM: MM ░███▓ ▓███ `MMb. dM' `MM dM' ` MM ,V^MM. MM ███▓ ▓███ `YMMNq. MM MM MM MM ,M `MM MM ███▓ ▓███ . `MM MM. ,MP MM. MM AbmmmqMA MM , ███▓ ▓███░ Mb dM `Mb. ,dP' `Mb. ,' MM A' VML MM ,M ░███▓ ▓███ P"Ybmmd" `"bmmd"' `"bmmmd' .JMML..AMA. .AMMA..JMMmmmmMMM ███▓ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███░ ███▓ ▓███ `7MMM. ,MMF'`7MM"""YMM `7MM"""Yb. `7MMF' db ░███▓ ▓███ MMMb dPMM MM `7 MM `Yb. MM ;MM: ███▓ ▓███ M YM ,M MM MM d MM `Mb MM ,V^MM. ███▓ ▓███░ M Mb M' MM MMmmMM MM MM MM ,M `MM ░███▓ ▓███ M YM.P' MM MM Y , MM ,MP MM AbmmmqMA ███▓ ▓███ M `YM' MM MM ,M MM ,dP' MM A' VML ███▓ ▓███░ .JML. `' .JMML..JMMmmmmMMM .JMMmmmdP' .JMML..AMA. .AMMA. ███▓ ▓███ ░███▓ ▓███ ██▓█ ▓███░ ░███▓ ██████▄ ▄███████ █████████████████████████████████▓▒░▒▓██████████████████▓▒▓███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓███████████████████▓ https://www.tiktok.com/@his_babygirl126 https://www.facebook.com/terri.cottrell https://www.youtube.com/user/mcottrell85/videos https://story.snapchat.com/@mcottrell85 ▓██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ▓██████▀ ▀███████ ▓███░ 0x09 ░███▓ ██▓█ ██▓█ ▓▓▓▓ ███▓ ▓███░ .g8"""bgd `7MM"""Mq. `7MMF'`7MMM. ,MMF'`7MMF'`7MN. `7MF' db `7MMF' ███▓ ▓███ .dP' `M MM `MM. MM MMMb dPMM MM MMN. M ;MM: MM ░███▓ ▓███ dM' ` MM ,M9 MM M YM ,M MM MM M YMb M ,V^MM. MM ███▓ ▓███ MM MMmmdM9 MM M Mb M' MM MM M `MN. M ,M `MM MM ███▓ ▓███░ MM. MM YM. MM M YM.P' MM MM M `MM.M AbmmmqMA MM , ███▓ ▓███ `Mb. ,' MM `Mb. MM M `YM' MM MM M YMM A' VML MM ,M ░███▓ ▓███ `"bmmmd' .JMML. .JMM..JMML..JML. `' .JMML..JMML..JML. YM .AMA. .AMMA..JMMmmmmMMM ███▓ ▓███░ ███▓ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███ `7MM"""Mq. `7MM"""YMM .g8"""bgd .g8""8q. `7MM"""Mq. `7MM"""Yb. .M"""bgd ███▓ ▓███░ MM `MM. MM `7 .dP' `M .dP' `YM. MM `MM. MM `Yb. ,MI "Y ░███▓ ▓███ MM ,M9 MM d dM' ` dM' `MM MM ,M9 MM `Mb `MMb. ███▓ ▓███ MMmmdM9 MMmmMM MM MM MM MMmmdM9 MM MM `YMMNq. ███▓ ▓███ MM YM. MM Y , MM. MM. ,MP MM YM. MM ,MP . `MM ███▓ ▓███░ MM `Mb. MM ,M `Mb. ,' `Mb. ,dP' MM `Mb. MM ,dP' Mb dM ░███▓ ▓███ .JMML. .JMM..JMMmmmmMMM `"bmmmd' `"bmmd"' .JMML. .JMM..JMMmmmdP' P"Ybmmd" ███▓ ▓███ ███▓ ▓███ ██▓█ ▓███░ ░███▓ ██████▄ ▄███████ █████████████████████████████████▓▒░▒▓██████████████████▓▒▓███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▓███████████████████▓ BIRTH NAME : COTTRELL THOMAS SBI NO : 975370A BIRTH YEAR : 1962 SEX: M COUNTY CASE NO : 97082896 OCN CASE INIT DATE : 08 04 1997 DEFN NO : 001 DEFN'S CASE NAME : COTTRELL THOMAS CHARG DOC : IN INDIC/ACC NO: 99-08-01159-I DISP DATE : 01 18 2000 ACTION : GT REASON : GUILTY PLEA AS CHARG SENTENCE DATE: 03 17 2000 RECEIVED SUPREME COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON CLERK'S OFFICE Dec 16, 2016, 2:47pm RECEIVED EtECTkONICALLY t:JLr:n suPREME couRT oF THE sTATE oF wAsHINGToN Dtc 2 £__ ------------------"ll'A.Si-1/tv' l t0f6 S(JpRE: G Ia tv S DONALD R. SWANK, Individually and as Personal Representative 'Me Cou~A If: of the ESTATE OF ANDREW F. SWANK, and PATRICIA A. SWANK, h / Petitioners, 7 ') v. VALLEY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, a Washington State Non-Profit Corporation, JIM PUR YEAR, MIKE HEDEN, and DERICK TAB ISH, individually, and TIMOTHY F. BURNS, M.D., individually, Respondents. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON DEFENSE TRIAL LAWYERS Christopher W. Nicoll, WSBA #20771 Noah S. Jaffe, WSBA #43454 Nicoll Black & Feig PLLC 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1650 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 838-7555 Facsimile: (206) 838-7515 cnicoll@nicollblack.com Stewart A. Estes, WSBA #15535 Keating Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S. 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4141 Seattle, W A 981 04 Telephone: (206) 623-8861 Facsimile: (206) 223-9423 sestes@kbmlawyers.com Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Washington Defense Trial Lawyers ~ ORIGINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS I. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .......................... 1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................... I III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................. 2 A. The Trial Court and Court of Appeals Properly Recognized that the Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction over Dr. Burns Would be Inconsistent with Constitutional Due Process Rights and Clear U.S. Supreme Court Precedent. .............. 4 I. Walden v. Fiore precludes the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over Dr. Burns ....................... 6 2. Walden's principles apply in the medical malpractice and common law negligence contexts .................. 12 3. The Lystedt Law does not alter defendants' due process rights nor impact the personal jurisdiction analysis .................................................................. 16 IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 18 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511,55 S. Ct. 497,79 L. Ed. 1032 (1935) .................................................................................................... 17 BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S. Ct. 1589, 134 L. Ed.2d 809 (1996) .............................................................................. 17 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985) ................................................................................ 4, 5,11 Daimler AG v. Bauman, U.S._, 134 S. Ct. 746, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2014) ...................................................................................................... 6 Gelineau v. New York Univ. Hasp., 375 F. Supp. 661 (D.N.J. 1974) ....... 14 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed.2d 796 (2011) ......................................................... 5 Grange Ins. Ass'n v. State, 110 Wn.2d 752, 757 P.2d 933 (1988) ............ 4 Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Cottrell, 424 U.S. 366, 96 S. Ct. 923, 47 L. Ed.2d 55 (1976) ........................................................................... 17 Green v. United States, 14-CV-119-NJR-DGW, 2016 WL 6248281 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2016) ............................................................................ 13, 15 Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 2 L. Ed.2d 1283 (1958) ...................................................................................................... 4 Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc., 491 U.S. 324, 109 S. Ct. 2491, 105 L. Ed.2d 275(1989) ....................................................................................... 17, 18 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed.2d 404 (1984) ............................................... 8, 12, 17 Lewis v. Bours, 119 Wn.2d 667,35 P.2d 221 (1992) ....................... 2, 3, 15 Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429, 434 n.2 (5th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................................. 13 Nat'! Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n v. Meyer, 165 F.3d 1151, 1153 (7th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................................... 17 Presby Patent Trust v. Infiltrator Sys., Inc., 14-CV-542-JL, 2015 WL 3506517 (D.N.H. June 3, 2015) ............................................................ 13 Pub. Impact, LLC v. Boston Consulting Grp., Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 732, 742 (M.D.N.C. 2015) ............................................................................ 13 ii Ruhe v. Bowen, 2:15-CV-03792-DCN, 2016 WL 5372555 (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2016) ................................................................................... 11, 13, 14 Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 113 Wn.2d 763,783 P.2d 78 (1989) ........ 4 Sutcliffe v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., CV-13-01029-PHX-PGR, 2015 WL 1442773 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2015) ........................................................ 13 Swank v. Valley Christian School, 194 Wn. App. 67, 374 P.3d 245 (20 16) ...................... " .. " ......... ". """"""'" ... "." ..... " ..... """""" ... """'. 2, 6 Tackett v. Duncan, 376 Mont. 348, 334 P.3d 920 (2014) ......................... 13 Waggaman v. Arauzo, 117 A.D.3d 724, 985 N.Y.S.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 20 14) ....................................................................................... 13, 14 Walden v. Fiore, U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 188 L. Ed. 2d 12 (2014) ...................................... 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 Walker v. Bonney-Watson Co., 64 Wn. App. 27,823 P.2d 518 (1992) ..... 4 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S. Ct. 559, 567, 62 L. Ed.2d 490 (1980) ............................................................. 5, 11 Yates v. Muir, 492 N.E.2d 1267 (Ill. 1986) ................................................. 2 Statutes Idaho Code § 3 3-1625 ............................................................................... 1 7 RCW 4.28 ................................................................................................... 4 iii I. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The Washington Defense Trial Lawyers Association (WDTL), established in 1962, includes more than 750 Washington attorneys engaged in civil defense litigation and trial work. The purpose of WDTL is to promote the highest professional and ethical standards for Washington civil defense attorneys and to serve our members through education, recognition, collegiality, professional development and advocacy. One important way in which WDTL represents its member is through amicus curiae submissions in cases that present issues of statewide concern to Washington civil defense attorneys and their clients. The appeal in this case implicates applicable concerns for WDTL and for foreign defendants generally, who would benefit from a clear and reliable articulation of law on the often vexing issue of specific personal jurisdiction, particularly in light of recent United States Supreme Court jurisprudence. For the reasons set forth below, WDTL respectfully requests that this Court affirm the Court of Appeals' and the trial court's dismissal of Dr. Burns for lack of personal jurisdiction. II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE WDTL generally relies upon the facts set forth in Respondent Dr. Burns' briefing. III. ARGUMENT The Court of Appeals concluded that the "dispositive case" on the personal jurisdiction issue presented by the facts of this case is Lewis by & through Lewis v. Bours, 119 Wn.2d 667,673,835 P.2d 221 (1992). Swank v. Valley Christian School, 194 Wn. App. 67, 89, 374 P.3d 245 (2016), review granted, 186 Wn.2d 1009, 380 P.3d 498 (2016). In Lewis, this Court "align[ ed] ourselves with the Illinois Supreme Court" in Yates v. Muir, 492 N.E.2d 1267 (Ill. 1986). While the Illinois court did not squarely address the Due Process Clause, it observed "that the conclusion we reach in favor of the defendant is consistent with decisions under the due process clause that residents of one State who travel to another jurisdiction for medical treatment cannot prosecute a malpractice action in their State of residence for injuries arising out of that treatment." Lewis, 119 Wn.2d, at 672 (quoting Yates, supra at 1269). As Dr. Burns' briefing succinctly lays out, Lewis directly controls the court's jurisdictional analysis here. 1 Dr. Burns' Response Brief, 15-21. WDTL agrees with Dr. Burns' analysis and with the Court of Appeals' holding on this point, and expands upon the constitutional due process 1 In Lewis this court expressly held that a nonresident physician's alleged malpractice in another state against a Washington State resident, standing alone, does not constitute a tortious act committed in Washington, even when the Washington resident suffers injury upon his or her return to Washington. ld. at 673. Accordingly, without more, there can be no personal jurisdiction over such an out of state defendant. /d. 2 constraints addressed in the case law relied upon by the Court of Appeals, governing the inquiry of a forum state's assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in Walden v. Fiore offers clear and decisive guidance on the relationship required between a foreign defendant and the forum in order authorize jurisdiction. Walden v. Fiore,_ U.S._, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 188 L. Ed. 2d 12 (2014). Under Walden, the focus must be on the defendant's suitrelated conduct, and whether that conduct creates a substantial connection with the forum state. Id. at 1121. The contacts must be those that the "defendant himself' creates with the forum, rather than connections via the plaintiff or a third party. Id. at 1122. Even in the absence of a controlling case such as Lewis, the due process inquiry applied by the unanimous Court in Walden makes plain that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Dr. Burns-or indeed, any similarly situated, nonresident-would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, and undermine constitutional due process rights. Dr. Burns' connections to the forum state were driven solely by the plaintiff or third parties, not through Dr. Burns' suit-related conduct. The Court should affirm. 3 A. The Trial Court and Court of Appeals Properly Recognized that the Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction over Dr. Burns Would be Inconsistent with Constitutional Due Process Rights and Clear U.S. Supreme Court Precedent. Washington's long-arm statute, chapter 4.28 RCW, authorizes the court to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the extent permitted by the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 113 Wn.2d 763, 766, 783 P.2d 78 (1989). To determine whether the exercise of specific jurisdiction over a foreign corporation will comport with due process, courts apply a three-part test: ( 1) that purposeful "minimum contacts" exist between the defendant and the forum state; (2) that the plaintiff's injuries "arise out of or relate to" those minimum contacts; and (3) that the exercise of jurisdiction be reasonable, that is, that jurisdiction be consistent with notions of "fair play and substantial justice." Grange Ins. Ass'n v. State, 110 Wn.2d 752, 758, 757 P.2d 933 (1988) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-78, 105 S, Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985)). Federal and state law requires that the defendant must have done some act by which it "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Walker v. Bonney-Watson Co., 64 Wn. App. 27, 34, 823 P.2d 518 (1992) (citing Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235,253, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283 (1958)). Foreseeability of causing injury in another state is not a "sufficient benchmark" for exercising personal 4 jurisdiction. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 474 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295, 100 S. Ct. 559, 567, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980)). "Instead, 'the foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis ... is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there."' Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 474. '"[l]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State."' Id. at 474-75. "This 'purposeful availment' requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ... the 'unilateral activity of another party or a third person.'" !d. at 4 75 (internal citations omitted). "Jurisdiction is proper 'where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a 'substantial connection' with the forum State." !d. (emphasis in original, citation omitted). Recent U.S. Supreme Court activity in the jurisdiction arena has served to tighten the personal jurisdictional requirements that must be met in order to satisfy due process, Two cases concerned general jurisdiction. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924, 131 S, Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (20 11) ("For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's 5 domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home" in the forum State.); Daimler AG v. Bauman,_ U.S._, 134 S. Ct. 746, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2014) (re-emphasizing the "at home" requirement for general jurisdiction and rejecting the Ninth Circuit's approach to agency.)2 The third, and most germane case to Dr. Burns' circumstance, is Walden v. Fiore, which expressly addressed the relevant contacts to be assessed when deciding whether the exercise of case-specific jurisdiction comports with due process. 134 S. Ct. at 1121. 1. Walden v. Fiore precludes the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over Dr. Burns. In Walden, the Supreme Court considered whether a police officer whose suit-related conduct occurred in Georgia could be haled into court in Nevada, where his alleged victims suffered injury caused by his conduct. Id. at 1119. The defendant officer seized plaintiffs' propetty while they were in a Georgia airport. I d. After the defendant helped draft a probable cause affidavit supporting the forfeiture of the funds and 2 The Swanks make only a passing and undeveloped argument that general personal jurisdiction exists. See Petitioners' Opening Brief, 47. In a footnote, the Swanks simply allege that Dr. Burns' contacts with Washington "would also appear to subject him to general jurisdiction in the state," ld. Here, where Dr. Burns is domiciled in Idaho, only sees patients in Idaho, and does not solicit any patients or business in Washington, there is simply no basis to assert general jurisdiction over him. See CP 285-87, 331, The Court of Appeals reached essentially this same conclusion, declining to consider the Swanks' general jurisdiction argument, where it appeared solely in a footnote and was therefore not meaningfully or adequately briefed, Swank v. Valley Christian Sch, 194 Wn. App. 67, 88, n.6, 374 P,3d 245, 256, n.6 (2016). 6 forwarded that to prosecutors in Georgia, the plaintiffs filed suit against the officer in federal court in Nevada. !d. at 1120. The trial court initially dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the Ninth Circuit applied a so-called "effects test" and reversed the trial court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the Georgia-based defendant knew the plaintiffs had a residence in Nevada and should have anticipated that the effects of his conduct would be felt there, despite the fact that none of the defendant's suit-related conduct occurred in Nevada. !d. at 1120. The Supreme Court found the Ninth Circuit's "approach to the 'minimum contacts' analysis impermissibly allows a plaintiffs contacts with the defendant and forum to drive the jurisdictional analysis." !d. at 1124-25. The Court ruled that "a defendant's relationship with a plaintiff or third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction." Id. at 1123. Instead, "[fJor a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State." Id. at 1121. The Court made clear that "suit-related conduct" is the defendant's "challenged conduct." Walden, 134 S. Ct. at 1125 ("[The Ninth Circuit's approach] also obscures the reality that none of petitioner's challenged conduct had anything to do with Nevada itself.") (emphasis added)). Walden thus requires courts to focus on the defendant's suit-related, or, 7 "challenged," conduct, and whether that conduct created a substantial connection with the forum? The Swanks seek to establish personal jurisdiction over Dr. Burns, but their only alleged basis for doing so (Dr. Burns' knowledge that their son played football for a private high school across the border in Washington state) is precisely what the Supreme Court rejected in Walden. a. The "suit-related" or "challenged" conduct consists of the treatment Dr. Burns provided to Drew Swank in Idaho. The conduct that petitioners challenge is Dr. Burns' treatment of Drew Swank, and the subsequent medical release he provided, based on the Swanks' self-reported condition. Petitioners allege that Dr. Burns knew Drew attended high school in Washington and would be playing football there. Yet, there is no serious dispute that all of Dr. Burns' challenged conduct occurred in Idaho, not Washington. Dr. Burns treated Drew Swank, himself an Idaho resident, since his birth, solely in Idaho. CP 223. In fact, Idaho was the only place that Dr. Burns saw patients at all; he had not seen patients in Washington State since 1993, some 16 years before the events at issue. CP 258-259; 286; 3 This comports with the Supreme Court,s consistent rejection of"attempts to satisfy the defendant focused 1 minimum contacts' inquiry by demonstrating contacts between the plaintiff (or thil·d parties) and the forum State." !d. at 1122 (citing He/icopteros Nactonales de Colombia, SA. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1984)). 8 331. Dr. Burns' examination of Drew following the concussion that gave rise to these events, occurred in Dr. Burns' Idaho office on September 22, 2009. CP 3. He advised the Swanks that Drew should not return to football until his self-reported symptoms had resolved. CP 374. When the Swanks reported that the symptoms had resolved, Dr. Burns' wrote a note releasing Drew to return to football and left that note at his office in Idaho. CP 320-21. Mrs. Swank picked up the note, gave it to Mr. Swank, and Mr. Swank in turn delivered it to the school in Washington. CP 174. The Swanks set forth facts they allege establish Dr. Burns' contacts with Washington, and allege further that those contacts are sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction here. Petitioners' Opening Brief, 16-19; 4 7-50. But, as Respondent Burns points out, those contacts deal primarily with Dr. Burns' employer, Ironwood. Dr. Burns Response Brief, 30. The Swanks have not sued Ironwood, only Dr. Burns in his individual capacity. Id. Under Walden the various alleged contacts between Dr. Burns and Washington are irrelevant, insofar as they are not suit-related. For example, Petitioners allege that Dr. Burns would sometimes send prescriptions for patients to pharmacies in Washington; send appointment reminders or place reminder phone-calls to patients in Washington; use labs based in Washington; maintain a website accessible and hosted in Washington; and others. Petitioners' Opening Brief, 16-19. 9 But these acts are not Dr. Burns' challenged conduct-that is, they do not include Dr. Burns' allegedly negligent treatment of Drew Swank, nor are they Dr. Burns' release for Drew to play footbalL Because those contacts are not Dr. Burns' suit-related conduct, they are not relevant to the key jurisdictional question, i.e., whether Dr. Burns' suit-related conduct created a substantial relationship between Dr. Burns and Washington state. b. Dr. Burns' Suit-Related Conduct Did Not Create a Connection to Washington, Let Alone the "Substantial" Connection that Due Process Requires. Petitioners argue that Dr. Burns knew, or should have known, that Drew would go on to play football in Washington after being medically released. They contend that Dr. Burns' knowledge alone somehow creates the substantial connection required under the due process analysis. Supplemental Brief of Petitioners, 15-16. Dr. Burns contests whether such knowledge is established under the facts,4 but even assuming that he did know, or that he should have known Drew would be returning to play football in Washington, under the Walden test such knowledge is insufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. "A defendant's mere knowledge that a plaintiff will suffer negative effects in a given forum is insufficient to support jurisdiction; the defendant's intentional contacts 4 Dr. Burns testified that at the time of the exam he was not aware what school Drew attended or where it was. CP 317-18. 10 must connect it with the forum state." Ruhe v. Bowen, 2:15-CV-03792- DCN, 2016 WL 5372555, at *4 (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2016) (citing Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. at 1126 ("[T]he mere fact that his conduct affected plaintiffs with connection to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.")). Even before Walden, though, mere foreseeability of causing injury in another state has not been a "sufficient benchmark" for exercising personal jurisdiction. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 474 (quoting WorldWide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. at 295). Instead, the defendant must have taken some act to purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State. Id. at 474-75. Dr. Burns' mere knowledge that Drew would potentially return to play football in Washington is not a purposeful availment by Dr. Burns of the privilege of conducting activities in Washington. The only connection between Dr. Burns' suit-related conduct and Washington is supplied by Drew Swank, an Idaho resident who, presumably along with his parents, made the decision to attend school and play football in Washington, subsequently suffering his fatal injuries there. Dr. Burns did not draft the medical release in order to access any rights or privileges in Washington; he did so simply as part of his care for Drew, which occurred solely in Idaho. Drew's team could have traveled to play a game anywhere- Idaho, II Montana, or Oregon. Drew could have played and not suffered injury, or suffered injury without playing. The fact that Drew suffered his tragic injuries at a game in Washington has nothing to do with any of Dr. Burn's challenged conduct. Consequently, Dr. Burn's suit-related conduct did not create a connection with Washington, much less a substantial one; the Washington connection was made by Drew Swank and his parents. Under Walden, it is only the defendant's contacts with the forum that may support specific personal jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court has rejected "attempts to satisfy the defendant focused 'minimum contacts' inquiry by demonstrating contacts between the plaintiff (or third parties) and the forum State." Id. at 1122 (citing Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 417). Here, petitioners attempt to do precisely that which the Supreme Court has rejected, relying on contacts with Washington that were driven by the Swanks, or the school, not Dr. Burns. 2. Walden's principles apply in the medical malpractice and common law negligence contexts. Walden is an intentional tort case, but it addresses principles of specific jurisdiction that the Court characterizes as applicable to all specific personal jurisdiction cases. Id. at 1123. Indeed, subsequent cases to consider the issue consistently demonstrate that Walden's focus on "whether the defendant's actions connect him to the forum ... [,]" Id. at 1124, is applied in a wide variety of litigation settings, including common 12 law negligence and medical malpractice. See, e.g., Green v. United States, 14-CV-119-NJR-DGW, 2016 WL 6248281 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2016) (medical malpractice); Ruhe v. Bowen, 2:15-CV-03792-DCN, 2016 WL 5372555 (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2016) (medical malpractice); Sutcliffe v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., CV-13-01029-PHX-PGR, 2015 WL 1442773 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2015) (negligence); Waggaman v. Arauzo, 117 A.D.3d 724, 726, 985 N.Y.S.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014) (medical malpractice).5 In each of these cases, the courts applied the reasoning and holding in Walden, and have gone on to recognize a lack of personal jurisdiction. For example, in Ruhe v. Bowen, 2016 WL 5372555, plaintiffs alleged personal jurisdiction in South Carolina over a non-resident physician who treated the plaintiff in Colorado, but issued prescriptions electronically to pharmacies in South Carolina. !d. at *I. The Court looked explicitly to Walden, finding that the doctor's knowledge of potential negative effects in the forum state were insufficient to support jurisdiction, and did not amount to purposeful contacts between the doctor and the forum state. !d. at *4. The Court was also persuaded by reasoning that medical services 5 Lower courts are applying Walden in various types of litigation. Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429, 434 n.2 (5th Cir. 2014) (breach of contract); Presby Patent Trust v. Infiltrator Sys., Inc., 14-CV-542-JL, 2015 WL 3506517, at *3 (D.N.H. June 3, 2015) (patent infringement); Pub. Impact, LLC v. Boston Consulting Grp., Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 732, 742 (M.D.N.C. 2015) (trademark infringement); Tackett v. Duncan, 376 Mont. 348,334 P.3d 920 (2014) (tort). 13 are not directed to any particular place, but to the patient himself. Id. at *5 (citing Gelineau v. New York Univ. Hasp., 375 F. Supp. 661 (D.N.J. 1974)). Under that reasoning, it would be fundamentally unfair to permit suit against a physician in whatever jurisdiction the patient may travel to and suffer the consequences of treatment. !d. "It was [plaintiffJ's, not Dr. Bowen's, actions that brought Dr. Bowen into contact with South Carolina-had [plaintiff! not moved to South Carolina, Dr. Bowen would have no reason to be in contact with South Carolina." !d. Here, Dr. Burns' alleged knowledge that Drew would return to play football in Washington is analogous to Dr. Bowen's knowledge that, by filling prescriptions in South Carolina, some harm may follow his patient there. But mere knowledge that a patient would or might travel to another jurisdiction and suffer consequences there does not amount to the physician purposefully directing his suit-related conduct at the jurisdiction; any connection formed was through the action of the patient himself. In another analogous and instructive case, Waggaman v. Arauzo, the New York plaintiff filed medical malpractice claims in New York, alleging personal jurisdiction over a non-resident physician who was licensed in Texas and provided the challenged treatment in Texas and Florida. 117 A.D.3d at 725. The court applied Walden, noting that it served to refine Supreme Court's "minimum contacts" analysis. !d. at 726. 14 The court concluded that treatment provided to a New York resident outside the forum was exactly the type of attenuated connection to a forum state that the Supreme Court holds violates due process, because the connection to New York is driven by the plaintiff, not by the defendant's conduct. Id. Similarly, in Green v. United States, the court ruled against specific personal jurisdiction over a doctor, finding that the doctor did not purposefully direct his activities to the forum. 2016 WL 6248281, at *3. Concluding that an injured patient's residence in the forum cannot support the exercise of jurisdiction over the doctor, the court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. I d. These cases collectively illustrate that the analysis set out in Walden, and its focus on the defendant's suit-related conduct as the proper basis for conducting the minimum contacts analysis, is appropriately and readily applicable in contexts like the one at issue here. Unlike those cases, though, here the plaintiffs and the doctor are all residents of Idaho; Washington is simply the location where Drew Swank sustained his injuries following issuance of the medical release. Thus, to find jurisdiction, a court would have to ignore both Walden and Lewis v. Bours, and conclude that an Idaho doctor who treated a long-standing Idaho resident patient can be subject to jurisdiction in Washington simply 15 because his patient voluntarily traveled to Washington and suffered injury here allegedly as a result of the doctor's negligence. 3. The Lystedt Law does not alter defendants' due process rights nor impact the personal jurisdiction analysis. Finally, petitioners argue that Washington's passage of the Lystedt Law should support an independent implied cause of action. Petitioners suggest this law therefore imposes additional duties on Dr. Burns, or that it impacts and broadens the court's jurisdictional analysis, creating a condition that would satisfy the exercise of due process here. Petitioners' Opening Brief, 35-39, 46; Petitioners' Supplemental Brief, 15-16. In short, petitioners contend that the Lystedt Law is an articulation by the legislature of an important safety concern, and that Dr. Burns' treatment of Drew Swank with knowledge he would return to Washington to play football here, amounts to a tacit agreement by Dr. Swank to be bound by the Lystedt Law. WDTL agrees with Dr. Burns' analysis that the Lystedt Law does not create any implied cause of action. Supplemental Brief of Dr. Burns, 12-17. Beyond that, however, there is nothing in the act that should or can change the constitutional due process analysis for the exercise of case specific personal jurisdiction. Since 1993, Dr. Burns had practiced medicine solely in Idaho. CP 258-59. He was licensed only in Idaho, and only saw patients in Idaho. CP 286; 331. While Dr. Burns had once held a 16 Washington medical license, he let that license lapse in 2003, more than six years before the events in question (and long before the Lystedt Law was passed). CP 253. The Lystedt Law did not have an analog in Idaho at h . 6 t at time. Under petitioner's proposed argument, a physician would be required to assume he was subjecting himself to the laws-and subsequently to the expectation of being haled into court-anywhere that his patients might subsequently travel. This approach is contrary to controlling Washington and Supreme Court precedent. Moreover, contrary to Walden and prior Supreme Court decisions, it would render an out-ofstate physician subject to jurisdiction in other states based upon the conduct of third parties: the patient who traveled to the other state, and the legislatures of other states who pass laws regarding how certain types of injuries are to be addressed within their borders. Walden, 134 S. Ct. at 1122; Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 417.7 6 Idaho's law relating to head injuries and concussions sustained by youth athletes was passed in 2012 and is found in Idaho Code§ 33-1625. 7 Although WDTL acknowledges that none of the parties have argued under the Commerce Clause, U.S. Canst. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, against the exportation of the Lystedt Law to physicians practicing in Idaho, it nevertheless bears mentioning that even if Washington's legislature intended the Lystedt Law to somehow govern the conduct of physicians practicing medicine in other states, "[n]o state has the authority to tell other polities what laws they must enact or how affairs must be conducted outside its borders." Nat'/ Solid Wastes Mgmt, Ass'n v. Meyer, 165 F.3d 1151, 1153 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 571, 116 S. Ct, 1589, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996); Healy v, Beer Institute, Inc., 491 U.S. 324, 109 S. Ct. 2491, 105 L. Ed. 2d 275 (1989); Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v, Cottrell, 424 U.S. 366, 17 IV. CONCLUSION The petitioners' attempt to establish personal jurisdiction over Dr. Burns runs counter to the personal jurisdiction analysis set forth in Walden and its progeny, as well as to prior controlling Washington case law. Dr. Burns' challenged conduct-the treatment and eventual release of Drew Swank to return to football-occurred entirely in Idaho. Even assuming Dr. Burns knew that Drew planned to return to play in Washington and could be injured there, such knowledge is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the reasoning in Walden. The assertion of personal jurisdiction in this case would violate Dr. Burns' due process rights and break with established federal law. The trial court and the Court of Appeals properly recognized and upheld the lack of personal jurisdiction in this case, and this court should affirm. Ill Ill 379-80, 96 S. Ct. 923, 47 L. Ed. 2d 55 (1976); Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511, 55 S. Ct. 497, 79 L. Ed. 1032 (1935)). Furthermore, "the 'Commerce Clause ... precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside of the State1 s borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the StateD' .... " Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc., 491 U.S. 324, 336-37, 109 S. Ct. 2491, 2499-500, 105 L. Ed. 2d 275 (1989) (citing cases). The notion that the Washington legislature has authority to regulate the conduct of an Idaho physician delivering medical treatment in Idaho to Idaho residents is one that this Court should approach with considerable caution. Furthermore, it hardly makes sense that the Washington legislature would imply a cause of action against an Idaho physician under a Washington law that cannot permissibly govern the Idaho physician's conduct in the first place. 18 Respectfully submitted this 16th day of December, 2016. By: /s/ Cristopher W. Nicoll Christopher W. Nicoll, WSBA#20771 Noah S. Jaffe, WSBA #43454 Nicoll Black & Feig PLLC 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1650 Seattle, W A 981 0 I Telephone: (206) 838-7555 Facsimile: (206) 838-7515 cnicoll@nicollblack.com By: /s/ Stewart A. Estes Stewart A. Estes, WSBA #15535 Keating Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S. 800 Fifth A venue, Suite 4141 Seattle, W A 98104 Telephone: (206) 623-8861 Facsimile: (206) 223-9423 sestes@kbmlawyers.com Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Washington Defense Trial Lawyers 19 DECLARATION OF SERVICE The undersigned does hereby declare and state as follows: On the date set forth below, I caused to be served: • BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE WASHINGTON DEFENSE TRIAL LA WYERS in the within matter by arranging for a copy to be delivered on the interested parties in said action, in the manner described below, addressed as follows: Patrick J. Cronin VIA FACSIMILE Winston Cashatt VIA U.S. MAIL 601 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 1900 X VIAE-MAIL Spokane, WA 99201 VIA HAND DELIVERY (Email Qjc@winstoncashatt.com) Attorney for Respondent Jim Puryear Gregory M. Miller VIA FACSIMILE Melissa J. Cunningham (Email VIA U.S. MAIL cunningham@carneylaw.com) X VIAE-MAIL Carney Badley Spellman, P .S. VIA HAND DELIVERY 70 I Fifth Ave., Ste. 3600 Seattle, WA 98104-7010 (Email millerlalcarneylaw .com) Attorneys for Respondent Timothy F. Burns, M.D. William C. Schroeder VIA FACSIMILE Gerald Kobluk VIA U.S. MAIL KSB Litigation, P .S. X VIA E-MAIL 221 N. Wall, Ste. 210 VIA HAND DELIVERY Spokane, WA 99201 (Email WCS@ksblit.legal) (Email gkobluk@ksblit.legal) Attomcy for Respondent Valley Christian School 20 Edward J. Bruya VIA FACSIMILE Eric R. Byrd VIA U.S. MAIL Bruya &Associates, P.C. X VIAE-MAIL 601 W. Riverside, Ste. 1600 VIA HAND DELIVERY Spokane, WA 99201 (Email ed@bruxalawfirm.com) (Email eric@bruxalawfirm.com) Attorney for Respondent Timothy F. Burns, M.D. Steven R. Stocker VIA FACSIMILE Stocker, Smith, Luciani & Staub VIA U.S. MAIL 312 W. Sprague Ave. X VIAE-MAIL Spokane, W A 9920 I VIA HAND DELIVERY (Email sstocker@sslslawfirm.com) Attorney for Respondent Jim Puryear Mark D. Kamitomo VIA FACSIMILE Collin M. Harper VIA U.S. MAIL The Markam Group, Inc., P.S. X VIAE-MAIL 421 W. Riverside, Suite I 060 VIA HAND DELIVERY Spokane, W A 9920 I Attorney for Petitioners George M. Ahrend VIA FACSIMILE Ahrend Law Firm PLLC VIA U.S. MAIL 100 E. Broadway Ave. X VIAE-MAIL Moses Lake, WA 98837 VIA HAND DELIVERY Attorney for Petitioners Valerie McOmie VIA FACSIMILE Amicus Co-Coordinator VIA U.S. MAIL WSAJ Foundation X VIAE-MAIL Tel. (360) 852-3332 VIA HAND DELIVERY valeriemcomie@}gmail.com I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on December 16, 2016 at Seattle, Washington. Is/ Stewart A. Estes Stewart A. Estes 21 OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mr. Estes: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Friday, December 16, 2016 4:05PM 'Stewart A. Estes' 'Valerie McOmie (valeriemcomie@gmail.com)'; 'danhuntington@richter-wimberley.com'; 'Bryan Harnetiaux'; 'collin@markamgrp.com'; 'mark@markamgrp.com'; 'Miller, Greg'; 'George Ahrend'; 'sstocker@sslslawfirm.com'; 'pjc@winstoncashatt.com'; 'wcs@ksblit.legal'; 'ed@bruyalawfirm.com'; 'Chris Nicoll'; 'Melissa O'Loughlin White'; 'Norgaard, Cathy'; 'Ed Bruya ';'Cunningham, Melissa J.'; 'gkobluk@ksblit.legal' RE: Swank v. Burns, et al. - WSC No. 93282-4 We corrected the case number from 90733-1 to 93282-4 on the Brief of Amicus Curiae and the Appendix to Brief of Amicus Curiae by writing it in on the documents. We will let you know if we need corrected pages sent. Supreme Court Clerk's Office Please note that any pleading filed as an attachment to e-mail will be treated as the original. Therefore, if a filing is byemail attachment, it is not necessary to mail to the court the original of the document. Questions about the Supreme Court Clerk's Office? Check out our website: http://www.co u rts.wa.gov /appellate trial courts/supreme/clerks/ Looking for the Rules of Appellate Procedure? Here's a link to them: http://www.courts.wa.gov/court rules/7fa=court rules.list&group=app&set=RAP Searching for information about a case? Case search options can be found here: http:// dw.cou rts.wa .gov I From: Stewart A. Estes [mailto:sestes@kbmlawyers.com] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 3:22PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Cc: 'Valerie McOmie (valeriemcomie@gmail.com)' ; 'danhuntington@richterwimberley.com' ; 'Bryan Harnetiaux' ; 'collin@markamgrp.com' ; 'mark@markamgrp.com' ; 'Miller, Greg' ; 'George Ahrend' ; 'sstocker@sslslawfirm.com' ; 'pjc@winstoncashatt.com' ; 'wcs@ksblit.legal' ; 'ed@bruyalawfirm.com' ; 'Chris Nicoll' ; 'Melissa O'Loughlin White' ; 'Norgaard, Cathy' ; 'Ed Bruya ' ; 'Cunningham, Melissa J.' ; 'gkobluk@ksblit.legal' Subject: RE: Swank v. Burns, et al.- WSC No. 93282-4 Dear Clerk: I apologize for the confusion. 1 A number of the briefs filed earlier use No. 90733-1. But, the BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS VALLEY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AND DERICK T ABISH, filed May 8, 2015 appears to change the cause number to 93282-4 (see cover page). http://www.courts.wa.gov/content!Briefs/A08/932824%20COA%20- %20Resp%20Brief%20(Valley%20Christian%20and%20Tabish).pdf#search=swank We updated the reference line in this email, but not on the brief. Should we file a corrected brief using 93282- 4? Thanks, Stew From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK [mailto:SUPREME@COURTS.WA.GOV] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 2:59PM To: Stewart A. Estes Cc: 'Valerie McOmie (valeriemcomie@gmail.com)' ; 'danhuntington@richterwimberley.com' ; 'Bryan Harnetiaux' ; 'collin@markamgrp.com' ; 'mark@markamgrp.com' ; 'Miller, Greg' ; 'George Ahrend' ; 'sstocker@sslslawfirm.com' ; 'pjc@winstoncashatt.com' ; 'wcs@ksblit.iegal' ; 'ed@bruyalawfirm.com' ; 'Chris Nicoll' ; 'Melissa O'Loughlin White' ; 'Norgaard, Cathy' ; 'Ed Bruya' ; 'Cunningham, Melissa J.' ; 'gkobluk@ksblit.iegal' Subject: RE: Swanl< v. Burns, et aL- WSC No. 93282-4 We noticed the e-mail reference says case number 93282-4 but the Brief of Amicus Curiae, Washington Defense Trial Lawyers says No. 90733-1. Please advise. Supreme Court Clerk's Office Please note that any pleading filed as an attachment to e-mail will be treated as the originaL Therefore, if a filing is byemail attachment, it is not necessary to mail to the court the original of the document Questions about the Supreme Court Clerk's Office? Check out our website: http://www .courts. wa.gov /appellate trial courts/supreme/clerks/ Looking for the Rules of Appellate Procedure? Here's a link to them: http:/(www .cou rts.wa .gov /court rules/?fa=co u rt rules.list&group=a pp&set= RAP Searching for information about a case? Case search options can be found here: http://dw.courts.wa.gov/ From: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 2:53 PM To: 'Stewart A. Estes' Cc: Valerie McOmie (valeriemcomie@gmail.com) ; danhuntington@richterwimberley.com; Bryan Harnetiaux ; collin@markamgrp.com; mark@markamgrp.com; Miller, Greg ; George Ahrend ; sstocker@sslslawfirm.com; pjc@winstoncashatt.com; wcs@ksblit.legal; ed@bruyalawfirm.com; Chris Nicoll 2 ; Melissa O'Loughlin White ; Norgaard, Cathy ; Ed Bruya ; Cunningham, Melissa J. ; gkobluk@ksblit.legal Subject: RE: Swank v. Burns, et al.- WSC No. 93282-4 Received 12-16-16. Supreme Court Clerk's Office Please note that any pleading filed as an attachment to e-mail will be treated as the original. Therefore, if a filing is byemail attachment, it is not necessary to mail to the court the original of the document. Questions about the Supreme Court Clerk's Office? Check out our website: http://www.courts.wa.gov /appellate trial courts/supreme/clerks/ Looking for the Rules of Appellate Procedure? Here's a link to them: http:ljwww .courts. wa.gov I court rules/?fa=court rules.list&group=a pp&set= RAP Searching for information about a case? Case search options can be found here: http://dw.courts.wa.gov/ From: Stewart A. Estes [mailto:sestes@kbmlawyers.corn] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 2:47PM To: OFFICE RECEPTIONIST, CLERK Cc: Valerie McOmie (valeriemcomie@grnail.com) ; danhuntington@richterwimberley.com; Bryan Harnetiaux ; collin@markamgrp.com; rnark@markamgrp.com; Miller, Greg ; George Ahrend ; sstocker@sslslawfirm.com; pjc@winstoncashatt.com; wcs@ksblit.legal; ed@bruyalawfirm.com; Chris Nicoll ; Melissa O'Loughlin White ; Norgaard, Cathy ; Ed Bruya ; Cunningham, Melissa J. ; gkobluk@ksblit.legal Subject: Swank v. Burns, et al. - WSC No. 93282-4 Dear Ms. Carlson: Pursuant to the Court's prior permission, please find attached WDTL's Amicus Curiae Brief and Appendix in the above matter. I am hereby contemporaneously serving electronically, by copy of this message, counsel for the parties, and to the Washington State Association for Justice Foundation who by agreement have accepted this method of service. Thank you, Stew Chair, WDTL Amicus Committee 571,.W ]:.571,.5 Keating, Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P .5. 3 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4141 Seattle, WA 98104-3175 KliATtNG, BUO.'UN ,., /<.'II:COJlM,\CK (206)623-8861 desk (206) 719-6831 cell Firm Website Personal Bio This message is confidential, and is intended only for the named recipient. It may contain information that is attorney client privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient1 you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message Is strictly prohibited, If you receive the message in error, or are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately, Thank you, NO. 99344-1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN RE THE PERSONAL RESTRAINT PETITION OF ROBERT R. WILLIAMS Petitioner. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’ ANSWER TO MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND RESPONSE TO AMICUS ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General HALEY BEACH WSBA #44731 Assistant Attorney General Corrections Division P.O. Box 40116 Olympia, WA 98504 (360) 586-1445 FILED SUPREME COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON 112112021 4:26 PM BY SUSAN L. CARLSON CLERK i I. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................. I II. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1 III. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.............................................2 IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.........................................................3 V. REASONS THE COURT SHOULD DENY REVIEW....................8 A. Consistent with Colvin and All Other Court of Appeals Decisions Considering this Question, the Court of Appeals Correctly Ruled the Department’s Comprehensive Response to Covid-19 Cannot Support a Claim of Unlawful Restraint under the Eighth Amendment................................................................................9 B. Consistent with Colvin and All Other Court of Appeals Decisions Considering this Question, the Court of Appeals Correctly Ruled the Department’s Comprehensive Response to Covid-19 Cannot Support a Claim of Unlawful Restraint under the Washington Constitution..............................................................................12 VI. RESPONSE TO AMICUS ..............................................................17 VII. THERE IS NO LAWFUL BASIS FOR EARLY RELEASE.........19 VIII. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................20 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Colvin v. Inslee, 195 Wn.2d 879, 467 P.3d 953 (2020)............................................ passim Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976)...................... 15, 16 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994).................... 11 Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1990) ............................................................ 19 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 183, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976)................ 16 In re Det. of Turay, 139 Wn.2d 379, 986 P.2d 790 (1999)................................................... 19 In re Gronquist, 138 Wn.2d 388, 978 P.2d 1083, 1093 (1999)....................................... 13 Kusah v. McCorkle, 100 Wash. 318, 170 P. 1023 (1918) ..................................................... 15 Matter of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 792 P.2d 506 (1990)................................................... 10 Matter of Cottrell, No. 37654-1-III (Dec. 22, 2020) (unpublished).................................... 11 Matter of Demos, No. 81362-5-I (Jul. 1, 2020) (unpublished), review denied, No. 98758-1 (Sep. 23, 2020) ....................................................................... 11 Matter of Gorski, No. 37589-7-III (Dec. 8, 2020) (unpublished)................................ 11, 12 ---- iii Matter of Hargrove, No. 37572-2-III (Dec. 10, 2020) (unpublished).............................. 11, 12 Matter of Pauley, 13 Wn. App. 2d 292, 466 P.3d 245 (2020), review denied, No. 98586-3 (Aug. 6, 2020).................................................................. passim Matter of Taylor, No. 81679-9-I (Dec. 9, 2020) (unpublished) ........................................ 11 Matter of Williams, No. 54629-9-II, 476 P.3d 1064 (2020) ........................................... 10, 11 State v. Bassett, 192 Wn.2d 67, 428 P.3d 343 (2018)..................................................... 13 State v. Dodd, 120 Wn.2d 1, 838 P.2d 86 (1992)......................................................... 15 State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1, 427 P.3d 621 (2018)....................................................... 13 State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986)..................................................... 14 State v. Smith, 150 Wn.2d 135, 75 P.3d 934 (2003)..................................................... 15 State v. Valentine, 132 Wn.2d 1, 935 P.2d 1294, 1301 (1997)........................................... 15 Woods v. Burton, 8 Wn. App. 13, 503 P.2d 1079 (1972).................................................. 14 Statutes RCW 72.09.010 ........................................................................................ 14 RCW 72.09.010(5).................................................................................... 14 RCW 72.09.010(9).................................................................................... 15 iv RCW 9.94A.728........................................................................................ 19 RCW 9.94A.745........................................................................................ 20 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A..................................................... 15 Rules RAP 13.4(b).................................................................................... 8, 10, 20 RAP 13.4(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 9 RAP 13.4(b)(4) ........................................................................................... 9 RAP 13.5A.................................................................................................. 8 Constitutional Provisions U.S. Const. Amend. VIII ................................................................... passim Wash. Const. Article I, Section 14..................................................... passim Wash. Const. Article III, Section 9........................................................... 19 1 II. INTRODUCTION Eight months have passed since Williams filed his personal restraint petition, asking for his immediate release from prison based on speculation and conjectures about the Department’s response to the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic. Since that time, the Department has continued its strong and comprehensive Covid-19 response. One third of Department prisons have had no positive Covid-19 cases among the incarcerated population and the mortality rate among incarcerated individuals who have contracted Covid-19 is 0.17%1 , far lower than the 1.3% death rate in Washington. 2 Despite Williams’ claim that the Department would not provide him adequate medical care should he test positive for Covid-19, the Department in fact provided Williams an extraordinary level of care— transferring him to a community hospital the day after he reported a symptom; monitoring him in the prison infirmary upon his return, with round-the-clock medical care; and then transferring him to a special medical isolation unit in accordance with the Department’s Covid-19 protocol, where he continued to receive round-the-clock medical observation and care until he was cleared to return to general population. 1 https://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/covid-19/data.htm#confirmed 2 https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/COVID19/DataDashboard 2 Currently, Williams is able to reside in general population and receives medical care as needed, including evaluation and care in the local hospital as appropriate. He has returned to the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center (Coyote Ridge), which had no active Covid-19 cases among the incarcerated population from mid-August to mid-November 2020, and which has had only 34 active Covid-19 cases in the last 30 days. 3 The Court of Appeals granted accelerated review of Williams’ petition and carefully considered the parties’ briefing, evidence, and multiple supplemental filings. The Court of Appeals correctly determined Williams had not demonstrated that he is under unlawful restraint. And there is no basis for ordering Williams’ early release from prison. The Court should deny his motion for discretionary review. III. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that Williams failed to demonstrate unlawful restraint because his conditions of confinement do not violate the Eighth Amendment. 2. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that Williams failed to demonstrate unlawful restraint because his conditions of confinement do not violate article I, section 14 of the Washington 3 https://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/covid-19/data.htm#confirmed 3 Constitution, which is not more protective than the Eighth Amendment in this context. IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Williams is serving a 22.5-year sentence for attempted murder. He entered prison at age 66, is now 78 years old, and will be 85 years old at the time of his earned release date on April 30, 2028. Williams first asked this Court for an emergency release from prison on May 15, 2020, over eight months ago. This Court transferred the matter to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted Williams accelerated review of his petition. In mid-June 2020, the Department filed its response, outlining the extensive efforts the Department had undertaken to combat the introduction and spread of Covid-19 in its prisons and other facilities. See Response, at 3-33. This information covered in detail the Department’s early identification of the risk of Covid-19, including its robust Health Services and infectious disease prevention program; the early February 2020 activation of the Emergency Operations Center and early March 2020 activation of Incident Command Posts at each prison; the early March 2020 suspension of all in-person visitation and volunteer programs; the Chief Medical Officer, Infectious Disease Physician, and Health Services’ creation of the WA State DOC COVID-19 Screening, Testing, and Infection Control Guideline (currently in Version 23); Covid-19 testing performed in 4 compliance with Department of Health guidelines, then greatly expanded to include serial testing at Coyote Ridge and other prisons; staff and new system intake screening efforts; the reduction of inter- and intra-system transfers; the early April 2020 mandatory face-covering requirement for all staff and incarcerated individuals; the comprehensive personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements; the strict cleaning, disinfection, and hygiene protocols; the widespread social distancing measures; the special precautions for units housing vulnerable populations; the creation of multiple regional care facilities to provide an intermediate level of care to individuals with Covid-19; its substantial compliance with the CDC Correctional Facility Guidelines; the Governor’s emergency proclamation and commutation, which allowed for the discretionary early release of over 1,000 incarcerated individuals; and the widespread Covid-19 testing of incarcerated individuals at Coyote Ridge. Response, at 3-28. This information reiterated and expanded on what this Court considered in Colvin v. Inslee, 195 Wn.2d 879, 467 P.3d 953 (2020), and what the Court of Appeals considered in Matter of Pauley, 13 Wn. App. 2d 292, 313, 466 P.3d 245 (2020), review denied, No. 98586-3 (Aug. 6, 2020). As this Court noted in Colvin, the Department developed a multistep plan to combat Covid-19; it “issued social distancing guidelines to offenders in early March 2020, started screening visitors on March 6, and stopped visits 5 on March 13, all in an effort to prevent the virus from spreading into facilities.” Colvin, 195 Wn.2d at 886. Additionally, “the Department has tried to follow United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines by administering screening protocols, creating special procedures for transporting offenders, implementing physical distancing protocols, providing free soap and handwashing facilities, and issuing instructions for facility cleaning and sanitizing” and imposed “an order that all facilities ensure that all staff and offenders wear face coverings.” Id. at 888. The Court noted that the prison population had been reduced from around 18,000 to just over 16,000. 4 Id. at 889. “The Department has implemented a multifaceted strategy designed to protect offenders housed at various facilities, increasing those protections as more information becomes available about the virus and its risks.” Id. at 901. In Pauley, the Court of Appeals similarly recognized that “[t]he record shows that DOC has taken the threat of COVID-19 seriously and taken reasonable and appropriate steps to mitigate the risk to incarcerated individuals.” Pauley, 13 Wn. App. 2d at 316. DOC has taken significant steps to mitigate the risk to [Petitioner]—including screening everyone entering the facility for symptoms, mandating that staff wear a mask or face covering at all times, providing face coverings for 4 The most recent Average Daily Population of those in total and partial confinement was 15,111, with 14,626 individuals in prison facilities. www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/400-RE002.pdf, last accessed Jan. 21, 2020. 6 inmates to wear whenever they are unable to social distance, providing unrestricted access to soap and water, implementing PPE requirements for staff when working with symptomatic inmates, reducing the number of inmates congregating in any one common area, isolating people who have confirmed or suspected COVID-19, quarantining those who had contact with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases, and increasing the frequency of cleaning common areas. [Petitioner] has not demonstrated why all these safety precautions are inadequate steps to prevent, to the extent possible, the spread of infection in the [prison]. Id. Here, the Court of Appeals allowed multiple supplemental filings. As a result, the Department provided even more evidence of its robust and thoughtful response to Covid-19, and in particular of the high level of medical care provided to Williams. This included the testing of all staff and incarcerated individuals in the Medium Security Complex at Coyote Ridge in June 2020, the implementation that month of serial testing of all staff, issuing surgical masks, and issuing N95 respirators to staff. In July 2020, the Department expanded serial staff testing and now conducts serial staff testing in all prisons. Supp. Response, at 4-6. Williams tested positive for Covid-19 in early June 2020, at which point he transferred to a community hospital for treatment, then released to the Airway Heights infirmary. When medically appropriate, he transferred to the Covid-19 medical isolation unit at the Monroe Correctional Complex until he was cleared to return to general population. Supp. Response, at 9. 7 He has received a high level of medical care since returning to Coyote Ridge in early August 2020, being seen in the Coyote Ridge infirmary, and transferring to a local hospital for testing and observation as appropriate. He has had multiple negative Covid-19 tests. Supp. Response, at 9-10. In November 2020, multiple staff members at Coyote Ridge tested positive through the Department’s serial staff testing. Mot. Supplement, at 2-4. Through contact tracing and widespread serial testing, positive cases were identified and the number of active cases reached 69 before declining to two. Answer to Motion for Release, Exhibit 1, at 2. There have been 34 active cases at Coyote Ridge in the past 30 days. In his petition, Williams argued that the conditions of confinement in prison amount to an unlawful restraint because he alleges the Department was deliberately indifferent to the risk of Covid-19 in prisons in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that this also violated article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution. The only remedy he sought was early release from prison to live in Florida at his sister’s home. The Court of Appeals granted accelerated review. After reviewing the parties’ extensive briefing, including multiple supplemental submissions, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. It determined the Department effected reasonable and adequate measures to mitigate the risks of Covid-19, that Williams has received quality medical care, and that he is not entitled to an early release. 8 On December 28, 2020, the Department began administering Covid19 vaccines to eligible incarcerated individuals and staff, in accordance with the Department of Health’s recommendations for vaccine prioritization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine guidance. Answer to Motion for Release, Exhibit 1, at 2-3. The Department expects to make the Covid-19 vaccine available to all staff and incarcerated individuals in the coming weeks and months, though this of course depends on the vaccine supply available. At his age, Williams is eligible to receive a vaccine under Washington’s Phase 1-B1, now underway. 5 V. REASONS THE COURT SHOULD DENY REVIEW This Court will review the denial of a personal restraint petition only if the decision below conflicts with precedent or raises issues of significant constitutional law or substantial public interest. RAP 13.4(b); RAP 13.5A. Here, the Court of Appeals decision is consistent with all the decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeals to consider conditions-of-confinement personal restraint petitions in the context of Covid-19. As outlined above, this Court considered a substantially similar factual record in Colvin. The only difference since then is an expansion of the Department’s Covid-19 response, intensifying its initial efforts by 5https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/VaccinationPh asesInfographic.pdf 9 increasing testing, updating its guidance and procedures based on scientific and medical developments, and recently beginning administration of the Covid-19 vaccine. When denying the Colvin petitioners’ request to convert the writ petition to a personal restraint petition, this Court ruled that, “no evidence here shows that the respondents have acted with deliberate indifference.” Colvin, 195 Wn.2d at 901. The same is true here. The narrow, fact-specific questions in this case do not present a significant question of law under the Constitution or Washington Constitution, nor an issue of substantial public issue warranting this Court’s review. The application of the Eighth Amendment and Washington Constitution to one unique personal restraint petition does not in itself present a significant question of law under either provision. See RAP 13.4(b)(3). This case involves a narrow, highly fact-specific inquiry that is only of interest to the Petitioner himself and is therefore not an issue of substantial public interest that would allow for review by this Court. See RAP 13.4(b)(4). The Court should deny discretionary review. A. Consistent with Colvin and All Other Court of Appeals Decisions Considering this Question, the Court of Appeals Correctly Ruled the Department’s Comprehensive Response to Covid-19 Cannot Support a Claim of Unlawful Restraint under the Eighth Amendment Williams does not meaningfully argue in his motion for discretionary review that there is any ground for this Court to review the 10 Court of Appeals decision denying Williams’ Eighth Amendment claim. He merely argues that this Court should reach a different result than it did in Colvin and a different result than the Court of Appeals reached below. But this is not a justifiable basis for discretionary review. See RAP 13.4(b). Williams’ entire argument regarding deliberate indifference relates to incidents and decisions that occurred in the past, not any aspect of his current conditions of confinement. As the Court of Appeals correctly noted, “when evaluating a PRP alleging unlawful conditions of confinement, we look to the petitioner’s current conditions of confinement.” Matter of Williams, No. 54629-9-II, 476 P.3d 1064, 1075 (2020); see RAP 16.4(c)(6) (“The conditions or manner of the restraint of petitioner are in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State of Washington”) (emphasis added). This is further reason to deny review. And even if the Court were to reconsider the question of deliberate indifference, there would be no basis to overturn the Court of Appeals decision. In a personal restraint petition, Williams bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that his restraint is unlawful. Matter of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 813, 792 P.2d 506 (1990). On his Eighth Amendment claim, Williams must demonstrate that the Department has recklessly disregarded or ignored a substantial risk to him. See Colvin, 195 Wn.2d at 900 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S. Ct. 11 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994)). The Court of Appeals considered the Department’s comprehensive response to Covid-19 over nearly the entire year of 2020 and correctly determined, consistent with this Court’s decision in Colvin and at least six other Court of Appeals decisions, 6 that this response cannot support a claim of deliberate indifference. Specifically: [T]his record shows numerous new restrictions, protocols, and policies that the Department has implemented since the emergence of COVID-19 in Washington, and even since the Colvin and Pauley courts found no deliberate indifference. The record shows that the Department’s response has expanded and evolved as the risk posed by COVID-19 has grown, and the Department managed to control an outbreak at Coyote Ridge through aggressive testing, contract tracing, and quarantining. This is not deliberate indifference. ¶99 Further, when Williams exhibited symptoms of COVID19, he was promptly transported to a hospital where he received medical care that enabled his survival and recovery. Then Williams was transported to an infirmary where he received constant nursing care. The Department’s response to [his] infection does not reflect deliberate indifference or reckless disregard to the risk of harm he faced. Williams, 476 P.3d at 1085-86. And although Williams discusses his unsuccessful Extraordinary Medical Placement application at length, the denial of a favorable exercise of purely executive discretion, even one that could have resulted in release from total confinement, does not demonstrate 6 Matter of Cottrell, No. 37654-1-III (Dec. 22, 2020) (unpublished); Matter of Hargrove, No. 37572-2-III (Dec. 10, 2020) (unpublished); Matter of Taylor, No. 81679-9- I (Dec. 9, 2020) (unpublished); Matter of Gorski, No. 37589-7-III (Dec. 8, 2020) (unpublished); Matter of Demos, No. 81362-5-I (Jul. 1, 2020) (unpublished), review denied, No. 98758-1 (Sep. 23, 2020); Pauley, 13 Wn. App. 2d 292. 12 deliberate indifference. See Colvin, 195 Wn.2d at 901. Williams does not otherwise challenge that decision. On this record, there is no basis for this Court to grant discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision on Williams’ Eighth Amendment claim or to reach a different conclusion. B. Consistent with Colvin and All Other Court of Appeals Decisions Considering this Question, the Court of Appeals Correctly Ruled the Department’s Comprehensive Response to Covid-19 Cannot Support a Claim of Unlawful Restraint under the Washington Constitution Although the Department disagrees with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution is more protective than the Eighth Amendment in this specific circumstance, review is not warranted. The Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion as every Washington court to consider the question of whether the Department’s response to Covid-19 violates the Washington Constitution, and it correctly concluded that it does not.7 And the review of an inmate’s personal restraint petition alleging unlawful confinement as a result of an unprecedented global pandemic and his particular age, race, and disability is a narrow and fact-specific inquiry. One decision applying a specific standard or test in response to a unique situation is not a basis for this 7 Matter of Hargrove, No. 37572-2-III; Matter of Gorski, No. 37589-7-III; Pauley, 13 Wn. App. 2d 292. 13 Court’s immediate review. At this time, there is no significant constitutional question or issue of substantial public interest such that review is warranted. If the Court were to grant review, it should conclude that prison conditions of confinement are a category of cases in which article I, section 14 does not provide greater protection than the Eighth Amendment and should not apply the test adopted by the Court of Appeals. In the context of a conditions-of-confinement personal restraint petition, cases which do “not address the unique circumstances and considerations of the prison environment . . . [are] inapplicable.” In re Gronquist, 138 Wn.2d 388, 406, 978 P.2d 1083, 1093 (1999). This Court has acknowledged “that the Washington State Constitution’s cruel punishment clause often provides greater protection than the Eighth Amendment.” State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1, 15, 427 P.3d 621 (2018) (emphasis added). But the Court has also ruled in multiple instances that Washington’s cruel punishment clause does not always provide greater protection than the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Bassett, 192 Wn.2d 67, 78, 428 P.3d 343, 348 (2018) (collecting cases). “We recognize that article I, section 14 is not per se broader than the Eighth Amendment. Under certain contexts, the court may have good reason to interpret the state and federal constitutions synonymously rather than independently.” Gregory, 192 Wn.2d at 16, n.6. 14 In Woods v. Burton, 8 Wn. App. 13, 16-17, 503 P.2d 1079 (1972), in the context of a jail habeas petition, the Court of Appeals considered article I, section 14 and the Eighth Amendment and concluded: “The standards to be applied in interpreting these provisions, of both constitutions, have not been precisely delineated . . . . The common thread running through their interpretations, however, relates to the deprivation of human dignity by conditions primarily related to sanitation and hygiene which are so base, inhumane and barberic [sic] they offend the dignity of any human being.” This suggests equivalence between the two standards. The fourth and sixth factors under State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986), most strongly favor reading the constitutional provisions coextensively. The fourth factor—preexisting state law—does so for two principal reasons. First, in 1981—well after the Woods decision—the Legislature expressed its legislative intent regarding the statewide system of corrections. RCW 72.09.010. This section lists a number of objectives, including that this “system, as much as possible, should reflect the values of the community.” RCW 72.09.010(5). These values emphasize work, self-improvement, and thrift, but not heightened protections regarding conditions of confinement. Id. Importantly, the last objective ties the Washington correctional system expressly to “those national standards which the state determines to be appropriate.” RCW 15 72.09.010(9). This objective underscores that Washington does not intend to chart its own course regarding conditions of confinement. Second, this Court held in Kusah v. McCorkle, 100 Wash. 318, 323, 170 P. 1023 (1918), that the state statutes imposing a duty on jailers “are but declaratory of the common law” going as far back as Blackstone’s Commentaries. Id. at 322 (quoting federal and state cases); see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A (discussing special relations giving rise to duty to aid or protect). The Supreme Court noted in the landmark decision Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976), that society’s evolving standards of decency defining the objective prong of an Eighth Amendment claim are expressed in state laws and regulations that codify the common law on this point. As such, the common law also favors reading the provisions as coextensive in this context. And the prevention of cruel punishment is not a local concern— avoiding unconstitutionally cruel punishment is a general concern of litigants nationwide. See State v. Smith, 150 Wn.2d 135, 152, 75 P.3d 934 (2003); State v. Dodd, 120 Wn.2d 1, 22, 838 P.2d 86 (1992). This Court has recognized that it was only in the 1970s that courts began to establish certain constitutional standards for prisons, under the Eighth Amendment standards. State v. Valentine, 132 Wn.2d 1, 16, 935 P.2d 1294, 1301 (1997) (“jails themselves are no longer the pestilential death traps they were in 16 eighteenth century England. Recent Eighth Amendment litigation of prisoners’ claims of cruel and unusual punishment has established certain constitutional standards for prisons) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05; Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 183, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 2925, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976)). This suggests the Washington Constitution is not broader in scope than the Eighth Amendment in this context because the Eighth Amendment was the first provision to set standards for prison conditions and did so nationwide. Williams urges review because he alleges that the Court of Appeals should have used a different test to evaluate his state constitutional claim. The Court should deny review because Williams’ claim would fail under any plausible test, given the Department’s robust response to the pandemic and the high level of care it has provided to Williams. And the Department has demonstrated good reason to interpret the constitutional provisions synonymously in the context of prison conditions of confinement. Even assuming greater protections apply under the Washington Constitution, Williams cannot demonstrate that his sentence is disproportionate now, simply because there is a risk of Covid-19 in prison. The courts determined that he should enter prison at age 66 and serve a 22.5- year sentence for a brutal violent crime. His earned release date is in seven years. There are a number of medical ailments that may disproportionately 17 affect older individuals, or individuals with specific racial or ethnic backgrounds. But just like heart disease or diabetes or cancer does not automatically render an otherwise valid prison sentence unconstitutional, nor does Covid-19. The Department has mounted a comprehensive systemwide response and provided Williams in particular with a high level of care and consideration. There is no basis for further review in this circumstance. VI. RESPONSE TO AMICUS The amicus brief filed in this matter similarly identifies no basis for discretionary review. The amici primarily argue that the pandemic has changed since the Court issued its decision in Colvin, and that the Court of Appeals should have adopted a different test under article I, section 14. The amici support the first part of their argument by pointing to nationwide data and Washington Department of Health data for nonincarcerated individuals and using it to support a conjecture that although Covid-19 infection rates in Department show a disproportionately lower rate of infection for Black inmates than White inmates, the virus could still have disproportionate impacts on Black incarcerated individuals. But this loses sight of the specific question at issue in a personal restraint petition: whether this particular petitioner is under unlawful restraint as a result of the Department’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. As recognized by the Court of Appeals and demonstrated above, he is not. The Department has 18 engaged in a comprehensive and sustained response to Covid-19. As with many organizations and institutions, there have been setbacks despite the Department’s best efforts and the cooperation of most incarcerated individuals. But even so, Williams’ prison currently has a limited number of active cases and one third of Department prisons have had no active Covid-19 cases among the incarcerated population at all.8 Williams received a high level of care and recovered from Covid-19. He has an ADA cell with access to medical care at all times. Covid-19 has not changed his sentence, and the Department has taken great care to keep him safe. Amici also argue that the Court of Appeals should have weighed evidence differently. Particularly, amici seem to argue that the Court of Appeals should have based its decision about Williams’ conditions of confinement on an Office of Corrections Ombuds report on its opinion of events in May and June 2020. That is merely a difference of opinion with the Court of Appeals’ consideration of the evidence. And it sheds no light on Williams’ current conditions and if he is under unlawful restraint. For both reasons, it demonstrates no basis for discretionary review. Finally, amici disagree with the Court of Appeals’ test under article I, section 14. Their arguments are identical to Williams’ arguments 8 https://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/covid-19/data.htm#confirmed 19 regarding the Court of Appeals’ determination of the article I, section 14 standard. For the same reasons outlined in response to Williams’ argument, the amici’s duplicate argument provides no reason to grant review. VII. THERE IS NO LAWFUL BASIS FOR EARLY RELEASE This Court should also deny review because the remedy Williams seeks is unavailable to him. In the context of a personal restraint petition challenging an allegedly unconstitutional condition of confinement, the Court can only order removal of the illegal restraint. When an incarcerated individual shows that his conditions of confinement are unlawful, the remedy is not release from confinement but an order remedying the unconstitutional conditions. In re Det. of Turay, 139 Wn.2d 379, 420, 986 P.2d 790 (1999) (footnotes omitted); see Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124, 1125-26, 1127 (11th Cir. 1990). Absent an infirmity or change to his sentence, Williams is not entitled to simply leave prison early. See generally RCW 9.94A.728. The courts have no authority commute a prison sentence. Colvin, 195 Wn.2d at 897 (“like the governor’s emergency powers, the governor’s power to release inmates by commuting sentences or pardoning offenders is exclusive and discretionary”) (citing Wash. Const. art. III, § 9). Even if Williams were ordered released, the Department does not expect that he would be eligible to transfer his supervision to Florida under the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS). He 20 notes that electronic monitoring is available in Florida, but that is not the challenge he faces. The Compact excludes individuals “released from incarceration under furlough, work-release, or other preparole program.” ICAOS Rule 2.107, available at https://www.interstatecompact.org; see RCW 9.94A.745. Even if he were eligible to seek to transfer his supervision to Florida under ICAOS, he would need permission from Florida to do so; he has presented no evidence of such. Williams has not demonstrated that inmates released from confinement to serve a prison sentence on electronic home confinement are eligible under ICAOS rules, and he has presented no in-state release plan. This is further reason to deny review and deny release. VIII. CONCLUSION This case does not meet the criteria for discretionary review under RAP 13.4(b) and does not warrant further consideration. The Court should deny review. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of January, 2021. ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General s/ Haley Beach HALEY BEACH, WSBA #44731 Assistant Attorney General Corrections Division OID #91025 PO Box 40116 Olympia, WA 98504-0116 (360) 586-1445 Haley.Beach@atg.wa.gov 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the date below I caused to be electronically filed the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’ ANSWER TO MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND RESPONSE TO AMICUS with the Clerk of the Court using the electronic filing system and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the following participants: KAYLAN LEE LOVROVICH ATTORNEY AT LAW 4293 MEMORIAL WAY NE SEATTLE WA 98195-0001 JACQUELINE MCMURTRIE UW LAW CLINIC – WA INNOCENE PROJECT 4293 MEMORIAL WAY NORTHEAST SEATTLE WA 98195-0001 ROBERT S. CHANG MELISSA R. LEE JESSICA LEVIN RONALD A. PETERSON LAW CLINIC SEATTLE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 1112 E. COLUMBIA ST. SEATTLE, WA 98122 AMY MUTH NATALIE FINDLEY-WOLF LAW OFFICE OF AMY MUTH, PLLC 1000 2ND AVE., STE. 3140 SEATTLE, WA 98104 22 NEIL M. FOX LAW OFFICE OF NEIL FOX, PLLC 2125 WESTERN AVE., STE. 330 SEATTLE, WA 98121 ANTOINETTE M. DAVIS NANCY TALNER JAIME HAWK AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION P.O. BOX 2728 SEATTLE, WA 98111 NICHOLAS ALLEN NICHOLAS B. STRALEY JANET S. CHUNG COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 101 YESLER WAY, STE. 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104 CINDY ARENDS ELSBERRY ALEXANDRIA HOHMAN WASHINGTON DEFENDER ASSOCIATION 110 PREFONTAINE PL. S., STE. 610 SEATTLE, WA 98104 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED this 21st day of January, 2021, at Olympia, WA. s/ Cherrie Melby CHERRIE MELBY Legal Assistant 4 Corrections Division PO Box 40116 Olympia WA 98504-0116 Cherrie.Melby@atg.wa.gov CORRECTIONS DIVISION ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE January 21, 2021 - 4:26 PM Transmittal Information Filed with Court: Supreme Court Appellate Court Case Number: 99344-1 Appellate Court Case Title: Personal Restraint Petition of Robert Rufus Williams Superior Court Case Number: 07-1-03073-7 The following documents have been uploaded: 993441_Answer_Reply_20210121162454SC880739_0245.pdf This File Contains: Answer/Reply - Answer to Motion for Discretionary Review The Original File Name was AnswerMDR-marked.pdf A copy of the uploaded files will be sent to: ali@defensenet.org amy@amymuthlaw.com changro@seattleu.edu cindy@defensenet.org ian@amymuthlaw.com jackiem@uw.edu jaimehawk@hotmail.com janet.chung@columbialegal.org jhawk@aclu-wa.org kaylan.lovrovich@wainnocenceproject.org leeme@seattleu.edu levinje@seattleu.edu natalie@amymuthlaw.com nf@neilfoxlaw.com nick.allen@columbialegal.org nick.straley@columbialegal.org pleadings@aclu-wa.org talner@aclu-wa.org tdavis@aclu-wa.org Comments: and Response to Amicus Sender Name: Cherrie Melby - Email: CherrieK@atg.wa.gov Filing on Behalf of: Haley Christine Beach - Email: haley.beach@atg.wa.gov (Alternate Email: ) Address: Washington State Attorney General, Corrections Division P.O. Box 40116 Olympia, WA, 98504-0116 Phone: (360) 586-1445 Note: The Filing Id is 20210121162454SC880739 Melissa Eckstrom Respondent, v. Sigurd Hansen Petitioner. PETITION FOR REVIEW Lafcadio Darling, WSBA No. 29963 HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, P.C. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 292-8008 Michael D. Helgren, WSBA No. 12186 Matthew J. Campos, WSBA No. 40777 MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC One Union Square 600 University Street, 27th Fl. Seattle, WA 98101-3143 (206) 467-1816 Attorneys for Petitioner Sigurd J. Hansen FILED Court of Appeals Division I State of Washington 812912018 4:27 PM 96259-6 i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. IDENTITY OF PETITIONER, CITATION TO APPELLATE DECISION & INTRODUCTION ........................... 1 II. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .......................................... 3 III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................... 3 IV. ARGUMENT WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED ........... 7 A. Standard for Discretionary Review ..................................... 7 B. The Decision is in Direct Conflict with this Court’s Precedent ......................................................... 7 1. This Court’s black letter collateral estoppel precedent. .................................................. 7 2. The decision conflicts with this Court’s precedent regarding when a minor represented by a GAL is bound by the outcome of a proceeding. ........................................ 8 3. The decision conflicts with this Court’s precedent regarding the participation and privity elements. ............................................. 13 4. The decision is contrary to this Court’s precedent regarding the justice element of collateral estoppel. ............................................ 16 C. The Decision Conflicts with a Published Appellate Decision ............................................................ 18 D. This Case Raises Issues of Substantial Public Interest that Should be Determined by this Court—at this Time .......................................................... 18 E. This Court Should Apply Any Rule Change Prospectively........................................................ 19 IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 20 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Beal for Martinez v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 954 P.2d 237 (1998) ............................................. 12, 17 Bordeaux v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 71 Wn.2d 392, 429 P.2d 207 (1967) ............................................... 13, 14 Christensen v. Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299, 96 P.3d 957 (2004) ....................................... 2, 8, 16, 18 Doe v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 141 Wn. App. 407, 167 P.3d 1193 (2007) ...................................... 12, 13 Feature Realty, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP, 161 Wn.2d 214, 164 P.3d 500 (2007) ............................................. 14, 15 Guardianship of Robinson, 9 Wn.2d 525, 115 P.2d 734 (1941) ................................................ passim McDevitt v. Harbor View Med. Center, 179 Wn.2d 59, 316 P.3d 469 (2013) ..................................................... 19 Nielson v. Spanaway General Medical Clinic, Inc., 135 Wn.2d 255, 956 P.2d 312 (1998) ..................................................... 8 Quesnell v. State, 83 Wn.2d 224, 517 P.2d 568 (1973) ........................................................................ 12, 17 Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 830 P.l2d 318 (1992) .................................................... 19 State v. Williams, 132 Wn.2d 248, 937 P.2d 1052 (1997) ............................................. 8, 18 Thompson v. State Dept. of Licensing, 128 Wn.2d 783 (1999) .......................................................................... 16 iii Wagner v. McDonald, 10 Wn. App. 213, 516 P.2d 1051 (1973) .............................................. 18 Statutes RCW 26.09.002 .............................................................................. 4, 13, 15 Other Authorities (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS, § 41 (1982) ....................................................... 9 FRANCIS C. AMENDOLA, 50 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS § 1116 (SEPT. 2016) .......... 9 Rules RAP 13.4(b) ...................................................................................... 2, 7, 18 I. IDENTITY OF PETITIONER, CITATION TO APPELLATE DECISION & INTRODUCTION Defendant/Appellant Sigurd J. Hansen (“Father”) seeks review in Eckstrom v. Hansen, Washington State Court of Appeals No. 76571-0-I (published July 30, 2018) (“Op.”). The decision is attached hereto as Appendix A. The Court of Appeals announces a new rule breaking unbroken Washington precedent: a minor may relitigate the central question of fact resolved at a full trial in which the minor was separately represented by an independent GAL, after the minor becomes an adult after and material evidence has been destroyed. If this is to be the new rule, it should be prospectively applied and should come from this Court. More than 25 years ago—in the midst of a bitter and acrimonious dissolution, and after making other false accusations against Father— Respondent’s mother (“Mother”) falsely accused Father of sexually abusing their then two-year-old daughter, Plaintiff/Respondent Melissa Eckstrom (“Daughter”). The sole foci of the six-day trial in 1992 were to determine whether the abuse allegations were true and to protect Daughter’s best interests. To that end, the court considered evidence and testimony from both sides, including from Daughter’s court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”); the court-appointed independent expert (a psychologist); and the social workers who supervised visitation – all of whom believed the abuse allegations were false. The court also heard Daughter’s testimony, through conversations between Daughter and her - 2 - therapist and court-appointed independent expert. Judge Peter Steere concluded that Father had not abused Daughter. Daughter now seeks to re-litigate these same disproven allegations. She alleges no new claims, offers no new evidence, and seeks the very outcome rejected in 1992. The only difference now is that memories have faded, evidence has been lost, and important witnesses are unavailable. This Court’s precedent is clear that collateral estoppel “bars relitigation of an issue in a subsequent proceeding involving the same parties.” Christensen v. Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299, 305, 96 P.3d 957 (2004). This Court’s precedent is also clear that a minor represented by a GAL at a proceeding is bound by the outcome. See Guardianship of Robinson, 9 Wn.2d 525, 536, 115 P.2d 734 (1941). This Court should grant review under RAP 13.4(b) because the decision is contrary to this Court’s and the Court of Appeals’ wellestablished precedent and involves important issues of public interest. If this Court does not accept review, the decision’s error will cause irreparable damage to Father that cannot later be undone, even if a jury finds again that he did not abuse Daughter, or if this Court determines later that collateral estoppel bars Daughter’s claims here.1 1 By contrast, no harm will come to Daughter by this Court’s decision to accept review beyond, at most, a modest delay in pursuing her already stale claims. - 3 - Indeed, if the well-settled rules of collateral estoppel were to be changed as the Court of Appeals proposes, this Court should apply any such changes prospectively to future cases, not to this one. At the time of the 1992 trial, the rules of collateral estoppel precluded relitigation of the issue of whether Father abused Daughter. Because of this, Father relied on the court’s finding of no abuse in not preserving critical evidence and exhibits. It would be manifestly unfair to force Father to relitigate these disproven allegations 25 years later when important evidence is no longer available because of reliance on the then-existing law. II. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Should Daughter’s claims have been dismissed under collateral estoppel where the same allegations underlying these claims were litigated and rejected in 1992, after a six-day trial held to resolve the same issues, at which the abuse claims were aggressively pursued, an independent expert was appointed by the Court, a GAL was appointed for Daughter, and where crucial evidence is no longer available? III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Over 25 years ago, Mother became pregnant with Daughter and she and Father married. See CP at 128-35. Mother filed for dissolution shortly after their wedding. Id; Appendix B (“App.”) at 16. After Mother made other false and disproven allegations against Father, Mother falsely - 4 - claimed that Father had sexually abused Daughter. Id; CP at 382-86; 359- 380; App. at 41-45; 49-80; 92-105. The social workers who assisted with Daughter’s visitation with Father expressed concerns—even before Mother made these abuse allegations—that Mother would falsely accuse Father of abusing Daughter to prevent him from having a relationship with her. CP at 382-86. Unfortunately, this prediction came true. Even though Daughter’s pediatricians had never seen evidence of abuse, App. at 40, Mother took Daughter to Harborview Medical Center and had her examined. Id. at 38. While the results of the physical examination were not themselves indicative of sexual abuse, Mother falsely told the Harborview doctors that Father had a history of abusing Daughter. App. at 38-40; 49-80; 92- 105. This false statement tainted the doctor’s examination and resulted in a CPS investigation. Id. While Daughter made no allegations at the time of her initial Harborview examination, see App., at 38-39, she later (after more time alone with Mother) made statements that could suggest possible abuse, though her statements were interpretable and unclear. Id. at 49-80. The dissolution litigation focused on custody, which turned solely on the issue of whether Father had abused Daughter (and Daughter’s best interests, see RCW 26.09.002). CP at 128-35. The court appointed a GAL to independently protect Daughter’s separate interests, investigate - 5 - the allegations of abuse, and provide a report to the court. CP at 311- 13. The GAL conducted a 20-month investigation and concluded that Father had not abused Daughter. App. at 81-89; CP at 128-35. The court also appointed an independent expert (a child psychiatrist), Dr. Dunne, to determine if Father had abused Daughter. CP at 128-35; 359-80; App. at 49-80; 92-105. Dr. Dunne conducted numerous interviews with the family including Father, Mother, Daughter, and Father’s and Mother’s parents. Id. He concluded that the probability that Father had abused Daughter was “extremely low.” CP at 130-31. On the other hand, he found that Mother had significant psychological problems, could have invented the abuse, and that there was an “extremely high” possibility that Mother had influenced Daughter against Father. Id. Judge Steere held a six day trial and considered evidence and testimony from Mother (who aggressively pursued the abuse claims through multiple attorneys), Daughter (through her conversations with her therapist and Dr. Dunne), Daughter’s GAL, the treating physicians at Harborview, the independent court-appointed expert, the social workers, Daughter’s pediatrician, and others. CP at 123-35; App. 40. After considering all of the evidence—and Mother’s motion for reconsideration—Judge Steere concluded that Father (and Father’s parents, whom Mother also accused of abuse) had not abused Daughter, - 6 - and that the Court could not and should not terminate his parental rights. Id. Had Judge Steere harbored doubt about Mother’s claims of sexual abuse, he would not have upheld Father’s parental rights. Instead, he specifically ruled: “Neither Sigurd J. Hansen nor Respondent’s parents … sexually abused Melissa.” Id. at 131. Because of the unfortunate but lasting impact Mother had on Daughter’s perception of Father, and on the advice of professionals working to repair the relationship between Father and Daughter, Father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights on November 16, 1993, long after the trial was over. App. at 106-108.2 In 2016, Daughter filed the instant lawsuit. Father brought a Motion to Dismiss Daughter’s new action because collateral estoppel precludes Daughter from relitigating allegations that were conclusively determined to be not true after a full trial on the merits. CP at 96-102. The trial court denied Father’s motion but granted his Motion for Certification Per RAP 2.3(b)(4) and stayed the proceedings. Id. at 17-18; 83-85. The Court of Appeals accepted review, but upheld the trial court’s decision in violation of this Court’s precedent, and its own. See Op. at 9. 2 After Father did so, Father and Daughter did not have contact until 2010 when Daughter was in her early twenties. CP at 450-60. - 7 - IV. ARGUMENT WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED A. Standard for Discretionary Review This Court will accept review of a decision of the Court of Appeals if it is in conflict with a decision of this Court or a published decision of the Court of Appeals or if it “involves an issue of substantial public interest that should be determined by the Supreme Court.” RAP 13.4(b). B. The Decision is in Direct Conflict with this Court’s Precedent The decision correctly applied this Court’s precedent in finding: (1) that the identical issue to be decided here—whether Father abused Daughter when she was two years old—was decided at the 1992 trial; and (2) that Judge Steere’s decision was a final judgment on the merits. Op. at 5. However, the decision conflicts with this Court’s precedent in holding that Father had not established that: (1) Daughter was a party or in privity with a party to the 1992 trial; and (2) no injustice would result by applying collateral estoppel here. Id. at 5-9. 1. This Court’s black letter collateral estoppel precedent. This Court has issued numerous rulings on the importance and application of collateral estoppel. As this Court recognizes: Collateral estoppel … stands for an extremely important principle in our adversary system of justice. It means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit. - 8 - State v. Williams, 132 Wn.2d 248, 253-54, 937 P.2d 1052 (1997). “The collateral estoppel doctrine promotes judicial economy and serves to prevent inconvenience or harassment of parties. It also implicates important principles of repose….” Christensen, supra, at 306-07; see also Nielson v. Spanaway General Medical Clinic, Inc., 135 Wn.2d 255, 262, 956 P.2d 312 (1998) (collateral estoppel “encourages respect for judicial decisions … by providing for finality in adjudications”). This Court has explained that the requirements of collateral estoppel are: “(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication must be identical with the one presented in the second; (2) the prior adjudication must have ended in a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea of collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party or in privity with a party to the prior litigation; and (4) application of the doctrine must not work an injustice.” Williams, supra, at 254. 2. The decision conflicts with this Court’s precedent regarding when a minor represented by a GAL is bound by the outcome of a proceeding. This Court’s precedent is clear that where a person attempts to relitigate issues subject to collateral estoppel, the fact that the person was a minor in the previous case does not change the application of the doctrine - 9 - if the minor was represented by a GAL.3 In Robinson, supra, this Court addressed the application of res judicata to two minors whose estate was represented by a GAL. Id. at 527-29. Originally, the minors were represented by GAL Hussey. Id. But, Hussey sought to transfer his duties to a new GAL, Terhune. Id. The trial court held a hearing on an accounting of the estate, Hussey’s management of it, and the transfer of his GAL duties to Terhune. Id. A separate GAL was appointed to protect the minors’ interests in the matter and to provide a report to the court. Id. After the minors’ separate GAL submitted his report, the trial court entered an order discharging Hussey, approving his final accounting, and approving the appointment of Terhune as GAL. Id. After reviewing subsequent reports from Terhune, the minors later claimed that the accounting filed with the court was false and that Terhune should be removed as GAL. Id. This Court held that because the minors’ claims were based on the accounting accepted by the trial court (in connection with which the minors were represented by a GAL who 3 Indeed, it is black letter law that “[a]n infant properly represented is bound by an adjudication to the same extent that he or she would have been had all the parties been adults.” FRANCIS C. AMENDOLA, 50 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS § 1116 (SEPT. 2016). And where, as here, a GAL is appointed for the minor, re-litigation is barred by collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS, § 41 (1982) (“A person who is not a party to an action but who is represented by a party is bound by … [it] as though he were a party … Such is the case in the appointment of a guardian ad litem for a minor”). - 10 - submitted a report on the matter), the minors were barred from pursuing such claims. Id. As the Court explained: “All of the matters which appellant now seeks to raise … could have and should have been raised at the hearing.” Id. Although, unlike Daughter here, the minors in Robinson never participated directly in the previous proceedings or had the benefit of a trial on the merits (or, indeed, any substantive review of their claims) this Court held that the minors there were nonetheless bound to the rulings in the earlier proceedings and were barred from relitigating issues that were determined in those earlier proceedings. Id. This Court’s binding precedent is clear: where a minor is represented by a GAL, the minor is bound by the rulings of the court. See Robinson, 9 Wn.2d at 536. The decision conflicts with this precedent in holding that collateral estoppel cannot apply to Daughter because she was not a party to the 1992 case. Op. at p. 7-8. Daughter was represented by a GAL in connection with the 1992 case on the subject of whether Father abused Daughter. Daughter’s GAL spent 20 months investigating the allegations of abuse (including conducting interviews of the parties and witnesses and reviewing court documents and depositions) and provided a report to the court that Father had not abused Daughter. App. at 81-89. Daughter’s - 11 - GAL is the only person, other than Mother, Father, and their attorneys, whom the court provided access to the sealed files. See CP at 232-33. The Court of Appeals ignores this precedent in holding that collateral estoppel cannot apply to Daughter because, according to it, she was not a party to the 1992 case. Op. at 7-8. This holding is based on the Court of Appeals’ determination that the GAL for Daughter did not have the authority to accept service for Daughter or assert a personal injury claim on her behalf and that, therefore, Daughter was not a party. Id. But, Robinson did not hold that collateral estoppel depends on the scope or context of the GAL appointment. See Robinson, supra, at 534-7. The Court of Appeals’ analysis does not arise from Robinson itself. Id. This Court should accept review to determine whether the Robinson holding should be so limited, when on its face it is not. Moreover, it is entirely irrelevant whether the GAL had the power to perform those tasks at the time the 1992 trial occurred (though the Court of Appeals is mistaken—the GAL was served with court papers and was the only other person aside from Mother, Father, and their counsel, to be given access to the sealed file). CP at 135; 232-33; 311-13. The GAL’s duty with regard to the 1992 case was to protect Daughter’s best interests. See CP 311-13. “Best interests” by any common sense and legal standard means the GAL had a fiduciary duty—the highest duty—to - 12 - do all that was necessary to protect the Daughter from harm. See Beal for Martinez v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 780-81, 954 P.2d 237 (1998) (GAL has a fiduciary relationship with minor). Indeed, this Court has approvingly quoted from another case that “it is the duty of a guardian ad litem to submit to the court all relevant defenses or legal claims his client may have.” Quesnell v. State, 83 Wn.2d 224, 236, 517 P.2d 568 (1973) (citation omitted). The “best interests” order was not, as the decision mistakenly concluded, a limitation on the GAL’s powers, but rather a broad grant of powers to do that which is necessary to protect Daughter’s interests. And, of course, a GAL can always take action to pursue legal claims—if there is a factual basis—and may be duty-bound to do so. See id. GALs can and often do pursue lawsuits, including personal injury lawsuits, on behalf of those they represent. See e.g., Doe v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 141 Wn. App. 407, 420, 167 P.3d 1193 (2007). As such, the Court of Appeals’ reasoning is flawed. It puts the cart before the horse. To hold that there cannot be collateral estoppel because the GAL did not file a claim for monetary damages ignores that a GAL can take action to pursue claims for damages on behalf of those the GAL represents, but that the GAL in this case did not, because the conclusion of his investigation and the result of the six day trial were that Father had not - 13 - abused Daughter. The Court of Appeals’ analysis confuses the GAL’s decision not to seek to have a claim filed because the GAL concluded that Father had not abused Daughter, with the mistaken notion, see Doe, supra, at 420, that the GAL lacked the authority to do so. The threshold question—which had to be answered before the GAL took any further action—was whether Father had abused Daughter. The GAL determined that Father had not abused Daughter and acted accordingly. Daughter was represented by a GAL at the 1992 proceedings—the focus of which was Daughter’s right to be free from abuse and Daughter’s best interests, see RCW 26.09.002; CP at 128-35; 311-13—and Daughter is therefore a party to that proceeding and bound under this Court’s precedent by the court’s 1992 judgment. See Robinson, supra, at 536. 3. The decision conflicts with this Court’s precedent regarding the participation and privity elements. Collateral estoppel is established if Daughter was “a party [to the prior proceedings], a participant, or in privity with either.” Bordeaux v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 71 Wn.2d 392, 396, 429 P.2d 207 (1967). Collateral estoppel is satisfied through participation because the rationale underlying the doctrine is that “a stranger’s rights cannot be determined in his absence from the controversy.” Id. Daughter was unquestionably a participant in—and was certainly no stranger to—the 1992 trial. The allegation that - 14 - Father abused Daughter was the entire focus of, and reason for, the trial. See App. at 81-89; CP at 128-35. Not only were Daughter’s interests separately represented by a GAL and an independent expert (as well as by Mother and Mother’s attorneys’ advocacy), but Daughter participated and offered testimony in the 1992 trial as her ambiguous statements regarding potential abuse—including those highlighted in Daughter’s prior briefing (as well as Daughter’s statements to experts, made outside Mother’s presence, that her Father had not harmed her)—were admitted through Daughter’s therapist and the independent expert. See e.g., CP 511-14. Because Daughter participated in the 1992 proceedings, collateral estoppel applies. See Bordeaux, supra, at 396. The decision fails to address her participation and, thus, conflicts with this Court’s precedent. The decision also fails to recognize that Daughter was also in privity with Mother under this Court’s precedent. “A nonparty is in privity with a party if that party adequately represented the nonparty's interest in the prior proceeding.” Feature Realty, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP, 161 Wn.2d 214, 224, 164 P.3d 500 (2007). Here, Mother and her attorneys vigorously pursued the allegation that Father abused Daughter, retained experts, and called numerous witnesses in support of their case during the six day trial on the matter. See CP at 123-35. Mother and her attorneys could not have done anything - 15 - more to represent Daughter’s interests (as she now asserts those interests to be) at the 1992 trial than they did. Thus, under this Court’s precedent, Daughter is bound by collateral estoppel because she is in privity with Mother. See Feature Realty, supra, at 224. The Court of Appeals also found privity did not apply because Mother and Daughter’s rights were different—Mother’s right was to prevent her Daughter from being abused and Daughter’s right was to not be abused. See Op. at 8. But, even assuming that was correct—and it is not4 —the decision fails to acknowledge that the privity requirement is met because Mother adequately represented Daughter’s interests at the earlier proceedings. See Feature Realty, supra, at 224. The decision is also in conflict with this Court’s precedent, in that—when applying the third criteria of collateral estoppel—the decision used res judicata, not collateral estoppel, law. The decision states that the “party” and/or “privity” element of collateral estoppel was not satisfied because the claim for relief sought in the 1992 trial was whether child abuse precluded custodial/visitation rights and here is whether that same 4 The focus of the 1992 trial was the best interests of Daughter, not Mother’s rights. See RCW 26.09.002. Mother’s right to the relief she was requesting—termination of Father’s parental rights—could only be granted if Father violated Daughter’s right to be free from abuse and it was in Daughter’s best interests. Id. Mother had no independent right to restrict Father’s parental rights. Id. Mother and Daughter thus had a mutual relationship in the same right at the 1992 trial. - 16 - child abuse should support a monetary claim for damages, Op., 7-8. But, while the nature of the relief sought can be relevant to res judicata (claim preclusion), it is irrelevant to collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) in which the question is whether the same issue—not the same claim or requested relief—is at issue in the two proceedings. Christensen, supra, at 306. The question is whether the GAL was appointed to represent Daughter on an issue common to both lawsuits, which he was. 4. The decision is contrary to this Court’s precedent regarding the justice element of collateral estoppel. In determining whether collateral estoppel would work an injustice, this Court’s focus is on procedural fairness—Washington courts typically do not look to the substance of the underlying decision in determining whether the justice element is satisfied. See Thompson v. State Dept. of Licensing, 128 Wn.2d 783, 795-96 (1999) (“collateral estoppel calls for an examination primarily of procedural regularity”). “Washington courts look to whether the parties to the earlier proceeding received a full and fair hearing on the issue in question.” Id. The allegation that Father abused Daughter was thoroughly litigated. Daughter had not one, but three advocates at the 1992 trial: (1) her own independent GAL; (2) Mother and her attorneys; and (3) an independent child psychiatrist. CP at 123-35. The court carefully considered all of the - 17 - evidence over the course of the six day trial and concluded Father had not abused Daughter. Id. Under this Court’s precedent, Father established the justice element. Id. The Court of Appeals held that the justice element of collateral estoppel is not met here because Daughter “was too young to testify, too young to understand the nature of the legal proceedings, and too young to be aware of her right to pursue a tort claim.” Op., at 8. Yet, this describes nearly every minor involved in a legal proceeding, which is precisely why GALs are appointed to protect minors’ interests. Here, Daughter’s GAL did so by thoroughly investigating the abuse allegations over the course of a 20-month investigation. The GAL concluded that Father had not abused Daughter. The GAL clearly had the “power to act for her,” contrary to the decision, because he had a fiduciary duty to investigate whether the alleged abuse had occurred and to “represent” her best interests. See Beal, supra, at 774; Quesnell, supra, at 236; CP at 311-13. Under this Court’s precedent, there is no injustice in holding Daughter to the outcome of a proceeding where the same abuse allegations being alleged here were fully litigated and found to be not true, and where Daughter’s separate interests were represented by a GAL. The 1992 trial established that Mother’s allegations against Father—like Mother’s - 18 - previous allegations against him—were false. Justice is not served by breathing new life into Mother’s false allegations. C. The Decision Conflicts with a Published Appellate Decision This Court should also accept review because the decision conflicts with Wagner v. McDonald, 10 Wn. App. 213, 214, 516 P.2d 1051 (1973), a published decision. See RAP 13.4(b). The decision conflicts with Wagner’s holding that a minor represented by a GAL is bound to the same extent as if the minor were an adult. Id. D. This Case Raises Issues of Substantial Public Interest that Should be Determined by this Court—at this Time Child sexual assault is a very serious matter of substantial public interest. See RAP 13.4(b). The principles underlying collateral estoppel are also “extremely important” and matters of substantial public interest. Williams, supra, 253-54. Indeed, while Washington has a strong interest in ensuring that allegations of sexual abuse are reviewed by the courts, it has at least as great an interest in finality and repose after those allegations are proven to be untrue. See e.g., Christensen, supra, at 306-07. Certainly, there is a substantial public interest in whether res judicata principles should effectively nullify collateral estoppel, as the decision did. Much unnecessary litigation will be pursued until this Court rules as to whether the decision is now the new rule in this State. Whether that is - 19 - the new rule, should be addressed sooner rather than later. Balancing such concerns is a matter of public interest that this Court should address. Finally, this Court should address such matters now, rather than waiting until the outcome of a second trial. Father has already stood trial once on these ugly allegations and was exonerated. The decision would force Father to stand trial for these disproven allegations yet again—this time without much of the evidence earlier weighed—and with all the attendant harm a second trial could cause. If the decision is not corrected now, Father will suffer these harms—even if it is later found that the decision is erroneous. Collateral estoppel is designed to prevent a second trial. This Court should accept review now to timely decide these important issues before further harm occurs. E. This Court Should Apply Any Rule Change Prospectively Washington law permits an appellate court decision to be applied prospectively, and not to the case at bar, when clear past precedent has been overruled and “applying the new rule to parties who relied on the old would offend basic notions of justice and fairness.” Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 830 P.l2d 318 (1992); McDevitt v. Harbor View Med. Center, 179 Wn.2d 59, 316 P.3d 469 (2013) (concurrence). Even if this Court were to overrule its past precedent, retroactive application of the new rule would offend basic notions of justice and - 20 - fairness. Father, his counsel, other attorneys involved in the 1992 proceedings, and the Superior Court, all relied on black letter collateral estoppel law in not preserving important evidence from the 1992 trial and critical evidence and records were discarded over time. See CP at 308-57. Father and his attorneys rightly believed, under the then-existing law, that the maintenance of such evidence was no longer reasonably necessary. The decision fails to acknowledge, let alone address, the injustice of its ruling as to Father. IV. CONCLUSION Father respectfully requests that the instant Motion be granted. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of August, 2018. HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, P.C. By: s/ Lafcadio Darling Lafcadio Darling, WSBA No. 29963 999 Third Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98104 T: (206) 292-8008 / F: (206) 340-0289 ldarling@hwb-law.com McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN By: s/ Matthew J. Campos Michael D. Helgren, WSBA No. 12186 Matthew J. Campos, WSBA No. 40777 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 mhelgren@mcnaul.com mcampos@mcnaul.com Attorneys for Petitioner Sigurd Hansen DECLARATION OF SERVICE The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on August 29, 2018, I caused a copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR REVIEW to be served on the following in the manner indicated below: Lincoln C. Beauregard Connelly Law Offices 2301 North 30th Street Tacoma, WA 98403 Telephone: (253) 593-0377 linco lnb@connell y-law .com mfolsom@connelly-law.com Attorneys for Daughter Dean Standish Perkins • • 0 Via Messenger Via U.S. Mail Via Email (Per Agreement) Dean Standish Perkins and Associates 119 1 st A venue South, #310 • • 0 Via Messenger Via U.S. Mail Via Email (Per Agreement) Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 467-0701 dean@deanstandishperkins.com Attorneys for Daughter Melissa Eckstrom Eckstrom Law Firm, PLLC 119 1st Ave S., Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98104-3429 Telephone: (425) 879-2700 melissa@eckstromlawfirm.com Pro Se • • 0 Via Messenger Via U.S. Mail Via Email (Per Agreement) DATED this 29th day of Augus~/-201~, at S/tle, Washington. \ ~ / ·~ Th~ Legal A:rsistant - 21 - 3608-001 hh27fx08mg 2018-08-29 APPENDIX A July 30, 2018 Lincoln Charles Beauregard Dean Standish Perkins, JR Connelly Law Offices Dean Standish Perkins & Assoc 2301 N 30th St 119 First Ave S Ste 310 Tacoma, WA 98403-3322 Seattle, WA 98104 lincolnb@connelly-law.com dean@deanstandishperkins.com Lafcadio H Darling Michael David Helgren Holmes Weddle & Barcott, P.C. McNaul Ebel Nawrot Et Al 999 3rd Ave Ste 2600 600 University St Ste 2700 Seattle, WA 98104-4011 Seattle, WA 98101-3143 ldarling@hwb-law.com mhelgren@mcnaul.com Matthew J. Campos McNaul Ebel Nawrot & Helgren PLLC 600 University St Ste 2700 Seattle, WA 98101-3143 mcampos@mcnaul.com CASE #: 76571-0-I Melissa Eckstrom, Respondent v. Sigurd Hansen, Petitioner King County, Cause No. 16-2-12120-9 SEA Counsel: Enclosed is a copy of the opinion filed in the above-referenced appeal which states in part: “We affirm the trial court decision allowing her suit to go forward." Counsel may file a motion for reconsideration within 20 days of filing this opinion pursuant to RAP 12.4(b). If counsel does not wish to file a motion for reconsideration but does wish to seek review by the Supreme Court, RAP 13.4(a) provides that if no motion for reconsideration is made, a petition for review must be filed in this court within 30 days. In accordance with RAP 14.4(a), a claim for costs by the prevailing party must be supported by a cost bill filed and served within ten days after the filing of this opinion, or claim for costs will be deemed waived. Sincerely, Richard D. Johnson Court Administrator/Clerk Enclosure c: The Honorable Suzanne Parisien RICHARD D. JOHNSON, Court Administrator/Clerk The Court of Appeals of the State of Washington Seattle DIVISION I One Union Square 600 University Street 98101-4170 (206) 464-7750 TDD: (206) 587-5505 2018 JUL 30 AM 8: 31 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON MELISSA ECKSTROM, Respondent, V. SIGURD HANSEN, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ______________ ) No. 76571-0-1 DIVISION ONE PUBLISHED OPINION FILED: July 30, 2018 BECKER, J. - Respondent Melissa Eckstrom has filed a personal injury claim against her father, petitioner Sigurd Hansen, alleging that he sexually molested her when she was two years old. At the time of the alleged abuse, Eckstrom's parents had just been through an acrimonious marriage and divorce. Eckstrom's mother accused Hansen of molesting the child, and the court was called on to decide whether Hansen should be allowed to continue having residential time with her. After a full trial in March 1992, the court found that Hansen had not abused Eckstrom. Hansen asserts that the 1992 finding of no abuse estops Eckstrom from litigating the present claim. Because Eckstrom was not a party to the 1992 proceedings, the trial court properly denied Hansen's motion to dismiss. No. 76571-0-1/2 FACTS Eckstrom's parents married in 1987 and separated about a month later. Eckstrom was born in 1988. The marriage was dissolved by decree in 1989. Under the parenting plan, Eckstrom resided primarily with her mother. Hansen, a commercial fisherman who spent several months per year in Alaska, exercised his right to residential time when he was in town. Then, in 1990, the mother began to accuse Hansen of. molesting the child. Although Hansen denied wrongdoing, his residential contact with his daughter was suspended by temporary order. Eckstrom was assessed by a number of professionals during the ensuing investigation. Sometimes she made statements that indicated Hansen had molested her. In other interviews, she denied that he had touched her inappropriately. A court-appointed psychiatrist concluded there was no convincing evidence to support the allegations of sexual abuse. A guardian ad litem appointed for Eckstrom filed a report stating his opinion that Hansen had not abused Eckstrom and recommending that his visitation with her be reinstated. A trial occurred in 1992 on Hansen's motion to resume residential contact with Eckstrom. The court made a finding that Hansen had not abused his daughter. The court provided for gradual reinstatement of his residential time with her, under therapeutic supervision intended to overcome the estrangement that had developed and to promote a close parent-child relationship. 2 No. 76571-0-li3 Efforts to reunite father and daughter were unsuccessful. In 1993, Hansen relinquished his parental rights. Eckstrom's mother assumed sole custody and control of the child. Eckstrom grew up having no contact with Hansen. In 2010, she reached out to Hansen and told him that she was planning to go to law school. She asked Hansen to give her money for tuition and other expenses, which she estimated as more than $250,000. Hansen told her that he would first want to get to know her better. They attended a joint counseling session. They had no further contact thereafter. Eckstrom went to law school and is now a practicing attorney. This suit began in May 2016, when Eckstrom filed a complaint against Hansen seeking damages for child rape and molestation. Eckstrom claimed to have memories of Hanse.n's abuse and said that she was prepared to testify about her experience. Hansen denied liability and asserted the defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel. He moved for dismissal in July 2016 on the ground that the 1992 finding of no abuse precluded Eckstrom's suit. The trial court denied the motion but granted Hansen's request for a certification under RAP 2.3(b)(4). This court granted discretionary review. 1 1 Hansen attached to his opening brief an appendix containing relevant documents filed in the earlier superior court action. These documents, originally filed under seal, were unsealed by the superior court in the present action of Eckstrom v. Hansen. Although the documents are not part of the record in this current case, the court was aware of their contents. See, ~. Clerk's Papers at 285 n.2. We grant Hansen's request to take judicial notice that these documents are, in fact, documents that were filed with the King County Superior Court in the earlier proceedings. That fact, supported by a copy of the court's docket, is not subject to reasonable dispute. ER 201 (b)(2). 3 No. 76571-0-1/4 ANALYSIS Res judicata and collateral estoppel are kindred doctrines designed to prevent repetitive litigation. Bordeaux v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 71 Wn.2d 392, 395, 429 P.2d 207 (1967). Whether an action is precluded by res judicata or collateral estoppel is reviewed de novo. Ensley v. Pitcher, 152 Wn. App. 891, 899, 222 P.3d 99 (2009), review denied, 168 Wn.2d 1028 (2010); Christensen v. Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299,305, 96 P.3d 957 (2004). We have little difficulty concluding that res judicata does not apply here. One of the requirements of res judicata is that the two suits involve the same cause of action. Williams v. Leone & Keeble, Inc., 171 Wn.2d 726,730,254 P.3d 818 (2011). These two suits do not. The suit between the parents addressed Hansen's right to have residential time with his daughter, whereas Eckstrom now raises a claim for personal injury damages. The closer question is the application of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion. Pederson v. Potter, 103 Wn. App. 62, 69, 11 P.3d 833 (2000), review denied, 143 Wn.2d 1006 (2001 ). Collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of a particular issue in a later proceeding involving the same parties, even if the later proceeding involves a different claim or cause of action. Pederson, 103 Wn. App. at 69. The requirements of collateral estoppel are: (1) the identical issue was decided in the prior action; (2) the prior action resulted in a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party to be estopped was a party or in privity with a party in the earlier proceeding; and (4) precluding relitigation of the issue will not work an injustice. Williams, 171 Wn.2d at 731. When the elements of collateral estoppel 4 No. 76571-0-1/5 are met, the doctrine serves to prevent inconvenience or harassment of parties and provides for finality in adjudications. Christensen, 152 Wn.2d at 306-07. The factual issue to be decided in Eckstrom's personal injury claim is whether Hansen sexually abused Eckstrom during the same time period as alleged in the 1992 proceeding. In the parenting plan trial in 1992, the trial court was presented with the identical issue and decided Hansen did not sexually abuse Eckstrom. The result was final judgment on the merits permitting Hansen to resume residential contact with his young daughter. Because the first two elements of collateral estoppel are satisfied, we must consider the third: whether Eckstrom, the party to be estopped, was a party or in privity with a party in the earlier proceeding. Eckstrom was not a named party to the earlier action. The caption of the case was "In Re the Marriage of Lisa Dawn Hansen, Petitioner, and Sigurd J. Hansen, Respondent." Hansen argues that his daughter was nonetheless "effectively a party" because a guardian ad litem was appointed for her. Hansen cites Guardianship of Robinson, 9 Wn.2d 525, 536, 115 P.2d 734 (1941 ). Robinson exemplifies the general principle that a minor represented by a guardian in an action is bound by the resulting judgment. RESTATEMENT (SECOND} OF JUDGMENTS§ 41 (1982). Robinson was an estate dispute. The George Washington Foundation, ' serving as guardian of the persons of three minors, petitioned for removal of Robert Terhune, who was then serving as guardian of their estates. Robinson, 9 Wn.2d at 534. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the foundation 5 · No. 76571-0-1/6 appealed. The foundation argued that the trial court should have removed Terhune because Terhune had allegedly filed a false final account overstating the cash on hand when he took over from his predecessor, who had resigned. At the earlier hearing on the final account, the foundation did not choose to appear though it had notice. The minors were personally served with notice of the hearing on the final account. A guardian ad litem was appointed "to appear and represent their interests" at the hearing. Robinson, 9 Wn.2d at 528-29, 536. The final account was approved, and no appeal was taken. Robinson, 9 Wn.2d at 529. The Supreme Court ruled that the claim of false reporting was no longer available in the second proceeding as a ground for removing Terhune because it could and should have been litigated at the earlier hearing on the final account. Robinson, 9 Wn.2d at 536. The minors were held to be bound by the previous order approving the final account. Robinson, 9 Wn.2d at 536. Hansen argues that under Robinson, whenever a guardian ad litem is appointed to protect a minor's interests, the minor is bound by the rulings of the court and cannot relitigate the issues resolved by those rulings. Robinson does not support stating the law so broadly. The effect of the appointment of a guardian ad litem depends on the type of case and the authority given. The Marriage of Hansen case, King County Superior Court cause number 87-3-09135-3, was a domestic relations matter. The order appointing a guardian ad litem for Eckstrom in 1990 provided that the guardian ad litem "shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the circumstances of the child in relation to Parenting 6 No. 76571-0-1/7 Plan matters and shall, in that capacity, represent the best interests of the minor child."2 The order did not authorize the guardian ad litem to receive service of process for Eckstrom or to assert claims and counterclaims on her behalf. Nothing in the terms of the order of appointment authorized the guardian ad litem to act for E.ckstrom so as to make her "effectively a party" as Hansen contends. Even if the guardian ad !item had concluded that Hansen abused Eckstrom, he did not have the authority to pursue a personal injury claim on her behalf. The guardian ad litem was appointed to represent Eckstrom's interests only in connection with the pending decision on whether her father should be allowed to have residential time with her. This concern is immaterial to the present suit. In addition, we find no authority permitting collateral estoppel to operate against a minor who is represented by a guardian ad litem in an earlier proceeding when the minor's interests in the second proceeding are not the same as in the first proceeding. In Robinson, the foundation was asserting the minors' interest in having their assets handled honestly. The exact same interest was at stake at the earlier hearing on the final account. Here, the interest now asserted by Eckstrom is to receive monetary compensation for the damages she has allegedly suffered as the result of Hansen's conduct. This is different from the Marriage of Hansen matter, where her interest was in being protected from sexual abuse, not in receiving compensation. 2 Clerk's Papers at 113-14. · 7 No. 76571-0-1/8 'l We conclude that the appointment of the guardian ad litem did not make Eckstrom a "party" to the dispute between her parents for purposes of collateral estoppel. Hansen next contends that Eckstrom, if not a party, was in privity with her mother, who was a named party to the adjudication in Marriage of Hansen. Privity denotes a mutual or successive relationship to the same right or property. McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wn.2d 299, 306, 738 P.2d 254 (1987). Eckstrom's mother was pursuing her right as a parent to protect her child from abuse. Eckstrom did not have that same right. As a child, she had to depend on others to protect her. And Eckstrom did not succeed to her mother's rights as a parent. Eckstrom is pursuing her own distinct right as an adult to sue for personal injury damages. The requirement for privity in collateral estoppel is "strict." McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 306. We conclude Eckstrom was not in privity with her mother. The fourth requirement of collateral estoppel is that precluding relitigation of the issue will not work an injustice on the party against whom the doctrine is to be applied. McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 303. Washington's case law on the injustice element "is most firmly rooted in procedural unfairness." Thompson v. Dep't of Licensing. 138 Wn.2d 783, 795, 982 P.2d 601 (1999). It would be procedurally unfair to Eckstrom to bind her to the outcome of an earlier proceeding that occurred when she was unrepresented by anyone with the power to act for her in litigation. At the time, she was too young to testify, too• young to understand the nature of the legal proceeding, and too young to be aware of her right to pursue a tort claim. 8 No. 76571-0-1/9 As noted by the trial court, the injustice of precluding Eckstrom from bringing her own suit is underscored by the public policy of RCW 4.16.340(1). The statute provides "a broad and generous application of the discovery rule to civil actions for injuries caused by childhood sexual abuse." C.J.C. v. Corp. of the Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 699,712,985 P.2d 262 (1999). It recognizes that victim~ may for many years "repress the meaning of the abuse or be unable to connect the abuse to any injury." C.J.C., 138 Wn.2d at 712-13. We conclude Eckstrom is not collaterally estopped by the earlier finding that Hansen did not abuse her. She is entitled to her own day in court to try to prove that he did. We affirm the trial court decision allowing her suit to go forward. WE CONCUR: ::ii 9 APPENDIX B - 23 - APPENDIX B1 Custody and Visitation Report by Michele Gregg, dated January 20, 1989 ..................................................................................................... App. 1 Decree of Dissolution, dated June 30, 1989......................................................................................................... App. 16 Harborview medical record, dated July 8, 1990 ........................................................................................................... App. 32 Declaration of Elizabeth Stanton, dated July 10, 1990 ......................................................................................................... App. 33 Harborview medical record by Mary Gibbons, dated July 23, 1990 ......................................................................................................... App. 38 Letter by William Forney, dated September 20, 1990 ............................................................................................... App. 40 Declaration of Elizabeth Stanton, dated September 25, 1990 ............................................................................................... App. 41 Letter by Lynda Bridges, dated November 5, 1990 ................................................................................................. App. 46 Psychological Evaluation of Sig Hansen, dated November 19, 1990 ............................................................................................... App. 49 Psychological Evaluation of Lisa Eckstrom, dated November 19, 1990 ............................................................................................... App. 53 Psychiatric Assessment of Melissa Eckstrom, dated November 26, 1990 ............................................................................................... App. 57 Letter by John Dunne, dated January 16, 1991 ................................................................................................... App. 80 Guardian Ad Litem Report by Victor Larson, dated February 10, 1992 ................................................................................................. App. 81 1 The documents included in Appendix B were submitted to the trial court and Court of Appeals and were encompassed within the Court of Appeals’ ruling taking judicial notice of such documents. See Appendix A at p. 3, n. 1; Petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Notice filed on August 9, 2017 - 24 - List of Exhibits, dated March 19, 1992 ..................................................................................................... App. 90 Supplemental Psychiatric Assessment of Melissa Eckstrom by John Dunne, dated January 14, 1992 ................................................................................................... App. 92 Petition for Termination of Parental Rights, dated December 17, 1993 ............................................................................................. App. 106 Order on Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, dated May 4, 2017......................................................................................................... App. 109 Stipulated Order on Fees Pursuant to Order Denying Motion to Compel, dated June 16, 2017....................................................................................................... App. 112 3608-001 hh292r08k5 2018-08-29 App. 1 1H THE SUPERIOR COURT or TF.E STATE OP WASHJHGTON ['OR Knm COUNTY FAMILY COURT SERVIC~S Mother ANb Father Re: Welfare of the Minor Child HO, 87-l-09135-3 FJ\MlLY COURT HO.&B-559 l CUSTODY AND VISITATION RE.POR't Melissa, ~.d, 4-22-88 This n,,tter wtis refen:ed t.o r'ami}y court Services in an 1::.r.der signed by commi1:1!llonec Velate•;HJ,i 0:1 9-6-88. The received for investigation by this worker on Ja a trial scheduled on the matter for 2-ZJ-89. Lisa Eckstrom Jtansen, age 22, Is the natural tuother of Melissa, age 9 rnon ths. Sigurd Hansen, age 22, is the alleged fathex, soon to be deterrnined by results of blood test•. The partif'!s wore mar.ried on 10-23-87 and separated on 11-24-13-7. A review 9f the legal file indicates the following:, 1. tn an (Jt::der signed by Comrni$sioner V¢lategui on 9-6-88, thf! mother- was awan.l~.a te.w.p,onn:y cust:oay of Melissa. The court orde:r:ed that \./hen the father is in Seattle, rl(! shall bave visitation w:ith Melissa t;.o times pnt: week, one vi,sit for one' hour and the other visit fot one and on,; half hours upon ,a hours not:l.ce to the mother of his intent to e::q}tcise vii,itaticn. Th-,, mother was ordered to cooperate to insure • aid visitation takes place. 2, The court further ordetej that ~hen the father is out of the area that the paternal graLdparents may exercise visitation w.ith Melis.sa in the mother's hot:1e subjBct to the cond.ltion th2t the paternal gtat,dP1othe:: attend Alanon meetings 1 wo times per week pending further order of the court. ll the p2ternal grano~1are1, ts comply "-'1th the al::ove condi tfon. they may Lava visitation with their granddaughter two times per week in the rnothet '::; home, one vis l t foi: one hC•'Jr; the other for one and one half hours, 3. On 11-29u8g c,_,mmfasioner Velnte;mi ordered that both parties sub.r,it Uvems~lves and Melissa for blood testing regardin9 par:enta~e. !.b.1e~QJ'.~ruLr~!;.QI11mr:ndru:'J. (,t)f; a_r:.r: ba 5i':d umrL.tlt.e fo:! 1o .... 1_pg,,;_ l. Rev,ie,w 0f inforIDat I.m, L,rn1s cubrnittee b:' the mcthet and th0 father. 3. Review of the legal file. 4. Review of re1,;:,rts a. 9-36-88 dr~g/~lcohol report regardjny the fLth~r by Stilt ley E. tettett.on, CCD".:' H), rfo~;_s case ll:li!tiage:. App. 2 HA.NStN REPORT PAGE 2 b. Par:mer's Insurance report regarding father's ll-19-87 accident. c. Letter of J -U-8.9 to roe from Jst;,rgatet Doy].1;1' FH:ipatrick regarding the pat~rnal qranarather's boat. d. M,:mntlake Terrace police reports dated S-19-Bfl; 9-25- BB; 12-4-881 and 12-10-88. 5. Office intervie1>.•1;: on J?.--7-3$ with the mother; 12-H-88 \.lith the father; and 1-12-89 with the rr1other. £. Home visit::: oi1 J2-19·'BS with thi.:! paternal gr1n1dparent:;; 1-4- 89 'n'ith the fat:ht1r; and 1-7-89 with the mother and Melissa; 1.-7-SS with the :maternal grandrnothei:; atid 1-7-E:l with the father and Melissa, RE: MOTHER The mother: was inlt ir.ll)' interviewed on 12-7-88. J.'he mother states she was told by a gcne:tic specJaUst that tbere was a 99% chance the father is not the father. 2'he b~by does not look anything Hkc, th1;, father. He it very pale ti_mi the baby is darker. The pecents dated foe two years pc1cc ta marriage'.· The fath~r, a corn,neccial fisherman, is :in Ahs!-;a most of the time. Mtei: an aigument with the father, the motbo.r sle:pt w:itb a man named Bi..11. Sha ilnd Bill were friends for four years. Melissa lock;; like BilL Bill know;; he might b~ th£ father and he's really excited about it. '.l'he father has seen Mt1liGsa ,;;mly five to seven t.itnes. He has supervised visitation because he's violent. He beat the mother up several. tir.1es. After: the mother- i.'ln!:lo, the father broke into her horN!, pushed 'her back and grabbed M.~lissa. MeLisaa 'h'as bruised on her ribs. The father also i:i[:,1,rid the telephone ?ilt of: the 11an. When the father beat the mother, he has given her black eyei, and bl~,ody noses. 'l"he ;11,,t;her left the father becau:Je he wan tea he.c to have an ab::n: tion and i:,.ecau$e he beat her. The rnothec states the father is a drug addict: and alcoholic. Bhe has seen him use rnar ijuana and cocv.ine. The father iz a chain smoker, The father ddnks all di'!Y. The father has told tne mothet !:.ha.t on his \.'ti.011 of one or twn sips of an alcoho!.ic beverage. She has an a1.:.e1•9ic reaction to alcohol. 1'he mother further ::tates that the ;,atenrn.l gnmclmothet: mnokes like a fiend, 'rhe inother has seen the pate--:ti:.1 grandrrv:,ther drunk se,•eral times. The hmne of l he pc, tern;;,J r:undparcii ts is filthy. The pat.em a) grandfather beat up the mothiJ:t' s sist;er · z mother~ inlaw. The father's yo1,.U1gdst htotIH:'r. is a Jmown drug addJc t. The patenial gi:andhther is a knmm hrawh.r in !lallard. lltt "t,ariqs out" at 1 ;he Smokr::· Chop and Hattie'tr Hat. "'J'h('Y Hvc in U,cse bars•·. ~'rhoy al,:, hate nie so I'm si.t:.e they ha1e ~he baby." N!lis mom sah'l they'd put u knH£: to my thrn3t.". The moth12r reports the patcrn.:il gr:<'}t1d111ot;lier also toJd her to abort H,t b11by. App. 3 H7'.NSEN REPORT PAGE 3 The mother states that when the father visits Me.Hssa, het mother 11nd sister su-pervize the v.isits. Melissa is aft:a,i,d oft.he father. The father; does not look at Melissa, whim he cornea to visit. "Be Hghts with me the whole time". 'lf the father is the father, the mother believes ttis contact witb Melissa should alwil,ys bf! cruper;,ised. The rnothet does not want !4e1Jssa z.t the honHi of the pat:ci:nal grandparnnts. Tho mother is afraid Lhat the father and his paunts will take Malissa a.rid m:mcl her to }b:rway. The father and paternal gr.andrnother told bg,r that: the father and his fornH~· stole a baby from a mothiu: and helped other pe,;p'.le take it to >Iorway. In the ,nH:>thec' s parent questionnaire t~ceived i,n Family Court: Service on 12-7-SS, the mother makes the followi11g additional aUegatfom,; ) . The father-' s boat was taken away for a dr1J9 check. 2. The father has many PW!' s. 3. The fathet has insurance fraud charges pending from November 27 - 4. The father slept all day, threw up a:J.1 over everythJ.ng all the tirne, ah,iays disappeared for day:; at a time, on drugs w1th his friends. 5. The father likes to hit c:hHdren at the blink of fin eyelash. ti. The father's family a.re all violent. !hey $nioke " lot, J,o l;iae drtJgs or ine, the father responded "no''. The father states the only time he hasc ever: seen his ;itother di:-ink v"w at his ¼£:doing. 'l'he father desires that Melissa spend half of her time w.ith him a.nd his family when he's in town. !le would also like Melissa to spend time vi.lth his family while he is fishing. He desires to have MeU.ssa on Decemher 24th. I intervie~ed the father in the home of the paternal gcandparents on l-4-8~. 'r.'he fatter.view was scheduled on 1~3~89. The home appeared clean and tmclvttered. on that date, the fa.thet to,id me that when he visited Mc1Jssa in the i,1othcr 's home. ln appr.:o:dmately mid-octobar:: 1988. tbe mothec's mother and sir.ter were pre:sent. Someone checked HelJss;i ,tnd she ncedi;,d tc, bB: chsangeil. 'th~ father sajd hi! •,rn.hted to change. her. 1'hc r:iother said "No, so::r:y, you'd !,)rob-ably play ,dth her". 'l'hc J:a U1er 's parents ;,•ere t,,_,rn fn K;:irmoy, lllori.'.:;y. The fa U,er was born in the United States and is Huen t in both ll).t1gt1agev. When the father was younger he went to Moi::-way every ti..o to thr"e years. !?'or the past th1·ee : eai;s, he has gone to 1lo::way every year because h;ls granrlr,2iren,,t. ,ffC: getting old. the father otat.es that May 17, Norwegian Independence Day ls "a bJg deal" in th~ fiorwegian culture. He ;,•;mts !:o be abJ~ l:o take l-¼eJiss.:1 1:o the pu;.de in Ballard on thut date, When MeLissa is old enc,ugh, the App. 5 RAJHlf.N REPOR2" PAGE 5 father wants to be able to take her to Norway, lie also uants her to learn to speak the Norwegi.ari la11g1.iagc. Re further wants to have her on TJecei,1ber 24 Lh bccatLSe trw t • s ¼'hen }1or.-'egia.ns celebra\;I?) Chris:tmas. The father b'Jlieves that when he returns home from fishint:L H: will take a •,Hiile for Melissa to get used to him again. :rbe father remembers his father bein9 gone for Hve months at a time. 1t took him a while to get used to his hther when he returned. The father states that it's now easier foe fisherman to visit lx!:cause th1l!Y can fly home. rf the father Pttrchases a home, he wonts Melissa to become reac,:ciuainted with Mm at the home of the paternal grandparents. •1 want to be fair with her, I don't want to cause her mental confusion". The father states the maternal qrandi:1other smokes. He harm• t seen her: smoke .lround Melissa and he appi::eciates that. The [&ther states that he and hls parents won't smoke around Melissa. Melissa is an alert, appealing, nine nw:mt:h old child. She was observed with her: ,nothei:: at the ho:me or her: mother and with her fath~r in her bedroom at the home of her mother. Ber mother keeps her impeccably groomed and in ftilly cmtfHs. Th<;) mother is very cautious regar;ding MeJissa's aoifety, She has !ili:lnY age appropdate toys available for her, the mother was pl1ys kaUy affectionate with Melissa. 1 bad requested of the mother that I observe the father with MeHssa in Helisva • :1 be.dro-om. Shortly af-ter the father arr h•ed, the mother told t:he father he coula take r,t;:;lissa into the bedroom. The father waited a few minutes bef<,re doing so, ,.ppa:cently to be assured that t·lelissa was C•!llfortable with his picking her up. During tha observation, Melissa appeared cornfor table w;i th her tather. arid he wHh her:. :n,a father was careful regarding hec sa.fety. He as a i'fectiona.te with Melissa and all observed father daughter action was appr<.,ptiate. wh:Ue Melissa explot:i1:d her environwent, the father gtated "I just love watching her". •rh,e. patl';.rn21l grandparents "'ere interviewed Jn their: ht.'lne ott lZ19-SB. 'rhe home was clean and orderly. '.l'he p,aternal gr,mdmothot stated she saw MeHss;:i for ten minutes when Melissa was three weeks old_. at th1:1 home of the maternal aunt. the pate:i:nal grandmother picked up Melissa and asked some q11estions abot-1!; her: but the mr:,thei: did flOt answer. Thu paternal grandmothe:: states she can't go back there. "They sat and starnd at me. 'l'hey didn't say hi, I felt like a c:: iminal''. After the par;;;ntz returned home from Ba1Jta.Li, the_ 1nother w¢rtt to stay with he::- m<:>tber for approx.i1n;-1tely :five days and thB father went to his apai: tment. The f)arentr· then both res iaed in their apartrn1;:nt. The l'.'aternal 9rartdmother visited them at their apartment and they :scem-ed to be fine. The paternal grand!!lothet stat!:!s she's riever seen the fa.thee drunk and that she never had any problews with him. He w;;is an averaoe st:mknt. The father ls the oldest of three sons.. 21 ycnr oldtkir:rnal li vu at home and wot ks as a mech,mic. 18 Yenr old Edgar; is till senJor in high .i:;chool. The paternal grandparents state none of theJr !;ort,:; have hel.'ln an:e;,;tt?rL The patern.il 9randfuthei: statt'G h,: does not il:Uow drinklng ot drug:;; on his b-o;,it. He bas his ei11pJ oyees ld 911 n contract £::taling thut the family being so close - the father rules the roost and they an sh8ke in thdr bocits. '' The maternal grandmother state5 tbe father tolil her h;ir, father be.it hia mother. ~fl)lJ...lif.illbJ:,,.J";;QRTl,.CT W11ll TILE 'f',l)RTIES L ~lij&Q...J)lte~.Yj!'cw with the MQ.llmr • ..QD. )·•111,=1~ j. l rc,;:ommcnded that tbe father: h.ivo a $ hour 1;,.1po::vi::;ed visit i-:ith Meliss;.i. on 1-s~s9 at the home of the paternal grandparents. The attorneys ugreedthat the supiarvisor would be Blit;talieth Stanton, i\fter the 1nother was info.:med of this teecmnrem:iaUon, she c211mi to this office ins:itting that my secretary inter:rnpt my lntervi.,:w 1-:ith .,mother clienL on that date, the mother told me, ::;he wants to be nearby when the fa.ther has Meliss;. bcca1.rne Melissa zcrcams and turns blue. wheneVf¼t she sees the father:. When tnc father a:ci:;ived for his visit with Melissa, the mothe:: iromedJ.atelY said "are YOU in a betccr mood?" the end of the visit when the father: brnught Melissa to mother, the mo thee asked why MeHssa' s shoes were off. The father rcwpondcd that he had taken her shoes and tights oH when he changed h~t diaper . 'rhe mother responded Ui,.it everybomµ,my". 5. t'at]~r's Drtnkim:r Behavtru::: at D\lfj,Y's: On 1··7=t\9, the mother: told iws the father li'iled in bars., '.rhe fath!.1'.t and his family arm frequently llt Duffy's. The father is often at Duffy's firnt thing :in the morning drinking vodka and water. The mo the:: does not thin~ the oi.•ner of Duffy's would tell me the tcuth because he's friend with the Hi'lnsene and the llansens br in9 m0st of the 1w::mey in there. In a telephone conve~•ation 1-7-89, the father told me he and his ''buadfos" go to rL He Hke to play pool .and shuffleboard. on 1~13-89, ;,rnkecl Urn mother fot the address of Duffy's. She responded "forget I said that-the Ot,.,'ner is one of Sig's really good friend::;''. On 1-13-89, r :interviewed Mr. Edward Duffy, owne:: of Duffy's, at Duffy's, He stated th• father is a •nice kid. He comas in oc'c;J;sionalJ.y and has maybe on~ dr inlc He dr: 5.rilrn voc1k;, cokea", 1'he father "never getl, out of 1ine, never: causes $UY troutle." Also, he does not stay lot19. Sig li<,nsen is the or.l'.i" Hansen who co111es to Duffy's. Mr. Duffy has met the paternal grandfather a couple of timas but the paterrrnl grandfather is not a customei: at Duffy• s. Mc Duffy states he had seen the father perhaps 20 times. The father does not come into Duffy's in the moi:ning. 1 also spcike with Margaret Moss, battem:ier. She states the rather docs not come ;l;ti ln the wor:n:l.ng:. tlG dt inks vodka cokes. !le comes in every two weeks or $0. Tbe father is trying to learn to play pool. Soflletirnes he com~::, in in the afternoon, drinks pl;,in coJ.;e1:1 and shoots pool. Ms. 1'\oss states that father js "a very decent kid 0 , mother stated that tbe paternal grandmother moth"'t WGuldn 't htive her baby for Jong because the paternal 9randrnother would stoal her and take ht'., to Nor.1.•ay. The mother stateii tr1e patcn1,;J gr ;;ndfatl'ler told l:in they h0lµr.Hl !"h)uJ anoUicr bi.lbY and takt Jt to App. 9 HANSEN REPOR'.I' PAGE 9 Norway. '.l'hey laugh about it. 1n a telephone conversation on l-lZ-89, the paternal grandfather to]d me that 20 y~ars ago, a Nor,,.·cg:lan man ;in New Bedford, Massachusetts, was going through a divorce and took his two children to Norwar. 'J'he man di.ed 1$ years ago.· '!'he B,msens knew the man but had m:,thing to do with the childrh,n" The father submitted udne Rnd breath E~mples far analysis on 9-16-BB, 9-19-BB, 9-21-Be and 9-27-88. 'fhe results o.f an tests were negative. Ms, Petter tori' .\Ldhgno:;;is .is .that the fiitther has rio apparent ptohlcm with /Jlcoho1 and/or di:m;rn at thir, time. ShG. ·· rccommt·ndi; thot the father attend aJeohol/dru9 in! .;.rnati<>tl ~:chrxd. App. 10 ' H.MlSEN REPORT PAGE 10 2. lu these reports l Hno no :l.ndication that the mother told the police the father had hurt Melissa and no indication ;;he told the poUce he h;;d tipped the phc,nc off the well. 3, ivas~"I state T'a troJ Cr.imjnal Records Chfil;;.~ill'.Jii.ruLJ;JJ.~ father: Results :received J-18-89 imHcated "li,o record WASJS filed bci!:"Dd on descriptions provided. ~-"--:-'f:---::?~-J;'..Llh;:rn § Conver sa:tiQtL.!illh...12f~Jl~.U.rY.,Jili,.il~.,....fil.QJfil c'an: The father has been br. ltelfry's patient since 19156. The fother ha.s esophagi.tis and has be~n sesln a number of tim(,!s for stomach irritation. There is nothing to say that the father's esophagi tis is caused by alcohol. The father• s overall health i& good. On 7-30-BB the father reguested a blood test for alcohol. 'The bloorp~ with Dr, CMr~ El, the r,,'.,_ti&Jlll,J:ie 1 o G 6' Dr:. Dii!vis aaw the father approximately thte? time.s a month fr,orn .July to the end of October 1988. The focus of treatment -was to help the father deal wHh his feelfogs of anger regarding the break up of the marriage and the way he reports being ti:'.eated by his wife over tbe care of the child. The father is critical of the mother. Dr" Davis believes the parents have not treated each ether well. ln the heat of anger the fath~r says some things which he later wishes he hadn't. Dr. i;avis does not think, at thLs time, the father is di:-,inkin9 probJetnaticaHy. Dr David believes there is absolutely no ·1:eIJBOt'l why the ct;n't have norin,;;;iztd contact with Melissa. Dr. :rnvidi state.:; th;,t when thri mother returned from ilm-1aii Ghe was u;:,set ;;ind zaid hei: husband was abusing drugs and alcohol, Dt. Travidi dof:s not recall for sure if the mother said the father beat her. The mother told Dr:; Travidi sne was 9et.titJg a divorce becaum~ she had realized that the father ;;,rn a tot;illy different i;.,euon i,ind that he ,h:anlL 7, J,-;H19 'l'eL\iJ.lt.QU.,, fuIDll~~:i,:iQ.~ Ms, Stanton irnpcn;v:l sec a five hm,ir vis$ t between the father and Melissa oo l,=8-89 on the hon,e of the paternal gr.indpar;ents. Ms. Stilnton r-eparts that given what occurred on that visit, she believes the fathe~ is a competent patent and has skills to provide adequate care for Melissa. In addition, he has support frnm bis mother who !'ls. Stanton repot ts ,in i.n te,ading atipropr UitfJ.lY with the baby .ind leaving the primary care to the father. !'is. Stanton reports that the NlernaJ grandmother was noUceably aggrie\red &t the loss of 8 months without being ;:;ble to assume to tole of grandmother wH:h her first grandchild. i'is. Stanton notes that during this v.is.HaUon, the paternal gtamHather \<'a.s a guiet soutr.::e of strength in the backgto,tna and was ver.y i;eniiJ.U.ve to this being Melit.sa's first visit iri the hems-a w:ith them. He cautfoned his wife about overwhelmi:n9 Meli1:1sa with hei: attention or: the attention of other people she didn't )rnow. Ms. St;;mton reports the father genuinely enjoys children. He was teacful when Mellssa left. He ilhtcd tc, J,.\:;. Gtantcm that .tt would vecy hard to 7 :00 <1:.m. to ,::;.::, to 1\laska. He wa« th;;iJ,led at any recogniUon Melissa gave to hitr1. Hs. Stanton ~m,ftr•t~ the father "~•ae~.•• in a laving, genuin0 manner, expi:e;;;;ed fears all this upn;:,;;,r w,:ni)d c:au.se Melissa to have mental problems. Hs. 5t;int6n recommenJs that Helissa be provide.Jce Mc1:tss4· to tlte f.:ither when hn rctu.:n::; frmn sea. App. 12 HMSEN il.EPORT '.E'A{;E 12 'l'he mother at,plolars to h;;ivc 1:tmi ted bu1i9ht into how her b12!rnv1,:.naffects others. I do believe she could benefit from counseU.ng in order to l) cope with her anger .it the father. Z) le.arn 1w.:ire eHecU.ve communictition with the father regarding i.ssues affecting Melissa, l) develop techniques foe de-escalating the ,;ppusal conflict. 1 am coricenHed ::ibout the rnc,\:he:r • s cc,ntinuing <1ccusation5 regai:ding the: fa\;het' and the mother• s Cfi!nr,onses when I discuss wj th he::' wy tindjngs .ifter investigating her accusatfons. :i am n,comroending that both parents submlt to a family psychiatric evaluation by n mutually a9t11ed upon psychiatrist. The !.!valuation should include the evaluator"s assessment of both parties emotional health as it relates to patenting and an 1anessment of each party's abJllty to suppoct Melissa's relationsMp with the other p.ar¢nt. t>,d:issa ha.s "' rich cultural heritage wHh Swedish .a.ms1dcan on her:: mother's side: and Norwegian run~r,ican and Norweg5an on her .father's side. She should have adequate 1;;)(posure to both cultLlTes. These ni.corrtt,e.ndaUons ;:u;e based on the assm11ption that Sig Hansen is Melissa's father. They are subject to revision should they be contraindicated by the findings noted in the family p.sychi;;.tric. evaluation. 1. Cuarr Js ouL to sea. UUJrr,2teJ y tlH?)' shed 1 havr Meli.usu !or lwo d;;iyn per wtic1k l or cit;ht hours per day. App. 13 HAt.SEN REPORT PliGE 13 Com1nenc:ing fo'.illodl~tely, Uie:r nha]} :in.HialJy ht>ve MeJ:iss,: for four houcs a day, two days pee week for two weeks. The next two wec~:s they sh;,,:JJ have her for sh hours, two d;:rys !c'Cr w~1ek. l'bereh::lissa; t1;10- three weeks in 1193; four l.'Oeks in 1994; ana thereafter. Dudng blocb of two longer, th,e; rw::ithet shall have Melissa 1.;tve,ry othet w~:e~:erid During th!:: summer, the father shall have tr,<:~ first opportunity to provide day care fot Melissa. If the mother is not li'Otking out of the home, he nh.iH h1'lve her for two weBk days per week for up to eight houcs per; day. lie shall a.lso h"1Ve w•,Iekends as outlined J,:n the Beet ion above. <1. Each Mother's Day weekend with the mottler and each r'ather 's Day weekend with the father. b, Pre:1:i,der1\;.' s Day weekend and Memot ial Day weekend iii odd numbt'!red years with the mother and even numbered years ½' ith the father. c. Martin Luther King Day weekend, 1..'.lbdt nay t-'eekend, and Veteran• s bay weekend in odd nmnbe::ed years with the father and eVem numbered years with the mother, d, Thanksg,i v ,i,119 vacation from Wednesday before Thanksgiving at 5:00 P.M. until Sunday at 6:0G r.M, with the mother in odd nurnb".'l::cd years and with tho father in av2n numbarad Yeats. e. Horwegjan Independence Day (May 17) with the father from 10:00 a.m. May 11 until 10:0Q a.rn. May JS. Jf the father Ls not in town, tho paternal ,,n:a11dparenls sh,11 have Melissa. f. Th~ (at;ner or the palcrn.il l,lraridparents, fr, his absence, shall have Mc}jssa for the ble::isir,9 or the fll~et. '.1'h"cY, ::in.a) 1 provide the mother with two weeks. not[ce of when thls ls to occur. App. 14 HANSE:N RE.PORT Pt\GE H Christmas Eve ~iLh the fnthet until 10:00 a.m. Chr.Lsti1ia.s Day. Chr iztmas Day with the mother. Dudng the holiday i,enson, tho fnthm:: .r.ha} l hav~ two addiUoMl dav.s from 10:00 a.m, th~ fit5t day until f.:00 l'.M. UH/ second day until 199L HI December J.991. the father ohall have five ;.ddlt:fonal days wltb Mclir;sa during the lmhdays. Beginr)ir,g fo December 1£<92, the father may take Melissa to Norway for Chr:i.Rtrnas even' other year. Mellssa shall be i:mm1 a maxjmu111 of 10 days, h1 order for the mother to-be spared anxiety regarding Melis!a'9 return from Non-1.iy, the attonie}'S should come up w:i.th a plan that would irlsure the mother: that H the fothet refuses to conic'! b;:,ck the incthec would have adequate legal fees to obtain \:hf: child's return. The father shall provida the mother w:i th the n.;;n1g, address and te lepl"wne numbfi:t: of relative w1th whom he and Melissa vill be staying. The father shall, at his expense, have Melissa call the mother twfoe ::;h,tlJ GlJbn;H to a filmily pnychlatric cva]u;ition by <> mutuaJ 1y a,;;i:eed 1.,1ptn'l ,:ir;ychJ att.in L The o.vn] uc1tor App. 15 flhNS8N RE?ORT PAGE 15 :,h;;J 1 bi: Pt•Ydd~d a copy of th.le report. Both seb of gtandpacents shall ba interviewed, .15. MeUssa sha.11 be provlnclusions of wnv and Decree of Dissolution as is Indicated by his ignature; and the st91ature of counset affixed hereto, arid the Court, having reand records herein, having heard the testimny of petitioner, considered statenents of counse\, and the Court having heretoCf OISSOWTION - 1 L---l---tt--,rr i age of Hansen DAVID J. ORDES O ATTORNtY AT LAW se ~er: 87-3-09135-3 705 SECOND AVENUE surrE 401 HOGE BUil.DiNG SEATTLE. WASHli'IIG'fON 98104 (2061 624·0130 App. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 24 25 26 - fore entered its Findings of Fact ctld Conclusions of Law, .nd deening itself fut ly a:ivised in the premises, rov THEREFORE, it is hereby OfOERID, /OJUXiID #.P DECREED that the marriage of the parties shal I be ard hereby is dissolved; and it is further OfOERED, ADJUXiED ttn oa::REED that the permanent parenting pla'i entered into by and between the parties herein shall be fully effective aid each party shalt coo:ply with each of the terms and conditions of said parentlng p\an; sa\d parenting plan shal I be incorporated herein by this reference and each .nd every provision thereof shat 1 becOl"lle oo Order of this Court b\nding 4'.)00 the parties herein; aod it is further Ofrking on the fishing boat· N:Jrthwestern,. and earns approximately sixty thousand cbl lars to sixty-five thousand dollars ($601 000.00 to $65,000.00) per year, adjusted gross incane, and V\hose net inccme based i:..pon said figures, after deduct ion of selfDECREE a= DI SSOWT!ON - 2 Marriage of Hansen Cause l'brber: 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J. 0ROELL A"fl'OfmEY AT i.AW: 705 SECONO A'\IE~UE surrE 401 HOGE BUii.DiNG SEA1TJ£. WAS!-HN'GTON 98104 12061 624-0130 .',~ App. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - ~loyment tax, federal income tax, will be appro:x:imatety three thousand three hundred fifty to three thousand five hJndred c:bt tars ($3,350.00~$3,SOO.OO) per month, shal I pay to the m:>ther, \'\hose residence ocldress is 54114 212th Street Southitilest, K-204, illbunt I ake Terrace, Washington 98043, ,1J1ose Socia I SeCtJri ty nlliber is 533=83-HOO,, was recently employed by Diamond Parking as a reception- . ist, btit has been laid off within the last few days; but anticipates reemployment arid shou Id be i~iRd wi th a net incane of one thousand to one thousand two hUhdred chi lars ($1,000.00-$1,200.00} per rmnth, the sum of six rundred twenty dollars ($620.00) per rronth, payable on or before the first (1st) day of each month, cOOYOOncing with the nonth of July 1989, and continuing on the same day of each rronth thereafter, for the support of Mal i ssa Qcl'l{,/!l Hansen-Eckstn::rn,. born 2:Z J!,pri f 1988, oo Sociai Security rurrber. Said support pay.rents shall be !'fBde to the Washington State Support Registry and each party will ccmptete such fonns as necessary in order to faci1 hate said payrnent. 9wuld respondent be rrore than fifteen (15} days past die in an anount equal to or greater than the support payable for one (l) ®nth, a payrol I deduct ion may be issued or other payrol 1 withhoiding act ion imy be taken ..nder RCW' 26 .. 18 or O.apter 21+.23 RQ'I, withoUt further notice to respondent. Each parent sha 11 not I fy the State of Washington Support Registry of any changes in their residence address; and it is further dental insurance coverage for W'el issa 1 s benefit,. if and as avai I able throug, their ell)loyment or other organiz:at ion at reduced costs.. Respondent shal I be responsible for paying seventy-five percent (75%) of such reasonable insurance DECREE CF DISSOWTION - 3 Marriage of Hansen Cause ~~r 87-3-09135-3 0AVlO J. 0RDELL ATTORNe:'!' AT I.AW 705 SECOND AV'ii'.NUE SUIT£ 401 HOGE SUILDlNG SEA:rrt::li; WASH lNGTON 98104 1200} 624-0130 App. 19 1 premiun, not paid by the ~toyer md directly related to insurance provided for 2 3 said dli Id ooly. The nnther sha 11 be responsible for paying the balance of said premiu:n. Pddi t ional ly, aiy end at! reasonable and necessary expenses for rmdi4 cal, hospitalization, dental, orthodontai, phal"'!'naceuticaL optical and ~ntaJ 5 health care ,\hich are not covered by insurance, sha!1 be paid seventy-five per6 cent (75%) by the father, twenty-five percent (25%) by the ®ther. Each parent 7 shall provide the other 1 on a regufar basis with identification car-ds and claim 8 forms available through that parent for p.irposes of obtaining services aid making 9 cl~irns for rehrburs:ement. ln ackiitiora to the support set forth herein, each par10 ent sha It iro i nta in Weti ssa, or a trustee for We Ii ssa, as the exc I us i ve benefi11 ciary oo all life insurance coverage a:s is available throog-i their enployer or 12 other ~loyment-retated organlzatioos; provided., rowever, that at such time as 13 either parent remarries, the coverage ptovided for the exclusive b:i:neflt of 14 Me I i ssa :my be reduced to one-ha I f ( 1 / 2) of the ava i tab I e benef f ts. Each par15 ent 's mpensat ion ri g,ts, disahi Ii ty benefits,. rmdkare and rredicaid beneflts, retirement oonefits, sick leave benefits, educational benefits and grants, and all other legislated; contractual a1d/or donated benefits, 'Ahether vested or non-vested and/or directly or indirectly derived through the act lvi ty of that specific party; provided, activity of that specific party; provided, however# that said benefit or benefits have not othen~ise specifically been awarded herein; and provided, further, that marriage of the party thrrug1 '.-.hose act hr i ty said benefits have been accrued sha 11 not be an indirect basis for an av1ard of that benefit; and it is further OR:>ERID, /OJIJ)GB) PN:> DECREED that the the parties have acquired doots , DECREE a= 01 SSOUJTlOl'-4 - 5 Marriage of Hansen Cause hllrtber: 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J. OR0ELl 705 SECONO AVENUE surrE 40t HOGE SUILOING $EATT~i:f. WASHINGTON 98104 12oe1 s24-01:~o App. 21 - - l and ool igations as set set forth on Exhibits C cl')d D,, ,,hidi are incorporated 2 herein by this reference. Petitioner shal r be req..1ired to pay those det>ts crid 3 obi igat ions set forth on Exhibit C, and respondent shal I be required to pay those 4 I debts and obi igations as set forth on Exhibit D. Each party shal I pay those 5 ' da::its and cbl igations assig1ed to them, ood hotd the other party hanliless there6 from. Should either pa,·ty fail to pay a debt or ool igaHon assi~d to said 7 party, then. in that event, said party shall be required to indernify the other 8 for ooy reasonable expenses or costs incurred as a result of the other party's 9 10 11 12 13 failure to pay said debts or obi igations v.hen d..te. Said expense and costs snal 1 include reasonable attorneys' fees \'\here appropriate; and it is further OIDffiED, ADJtDGBJ PN:J Dl:CREED that respondent shalt be entitled to claim a tax exerrpt ion for ~ 1i s sa. Pet i ti oner shat \ be requ \ red to execute any ood at l fonns required by the lnternat Revenue Service in order to effectuate this 14 t prov i s ion; and i t is fur" ther 15 11 OIDERBJ, AD.JUJGID flW DECRtlD that each party shal I notify the other of 16 I any change in e,pl O)lll"nt status, inc I ud i ng the name and address of e,pl oyer, ood 17 telephone rurber at place of erptoyment~ or reasonable rressage nurber to be used l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 for eoorgency pJrposes, pn:mpt ly 1.900 the change occurring in the ~toyrrent status. For the ("rposes hereof, change fron enµJoyment to me;1ployrrent status or from unBrptoyment to ~loyroont status constitutes a change in e~loyment status; and it is further OFOERBJ~ ADJUXED )IN) 08:REED that the parties shall file separate returns for the year 1988~ and each year thereafter for incane tax p.1rposes. Toe DB:REE CF O I SSOWTION - 6 Marriage of Hansen Cause ltmer: 87-3-09135-3 L DAVID J. 0RDE:LL AT1't;)f1Nio."Y AT LAW 705 :SE.COMO A\IENUE SIJlTE 401 HOGE 9WH .. PlNG S~ATiLE:, WASHINGTON !;!S1C)4 l:20GJ 626<1130 App. 22 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 rn 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - parties m1all corrrriunicate regarding matters of dispute related to the 1988 income taxes and wi l I endeavor to reach an agreement regarding said matter. J,,ny agreement reached by and bet,-veen the parties shalt be fol towed by the parties. N-?.tther party is mder obligation to reach a'l agreement, but each party shaH have any and all rig1ts provided by Federal tax laws; and it is further OIDffiED .. ADJUJGID IN) DECREED that there are certain items of personal property of the parties, lnduding an oak entertairwnent centre, television set putchased shortly prior to rrarriage, stereo receiver, speakers, m.icrc,.,-.ave, vacuum cleaner,. brass boat and miscellaneous other items µ.irchased prior to nBrriage, award of ;,-.hfch remains in dispute between the parties. lhe parties wi If endeavor to resolve issues regarding ownership of said items of property wl thin sixty (60) days of entry of the Decree of Disso\utfon provided, if they are 1.nable to so agree,, ~dther party may, by m::,tlon,, present this matter on the Fa11i ly Law J.ltotion Calendar to be heard on affidavit only, and the ru( ing of the Judge/Court G:mnissioner hearing the s~ shat I be binding on the parties,, subject to revision. The restraining orders entered by the parties regarding sale or disposition of any of said assets, as wel I a:s assets awarded to the other party herein shall re·• main io ful 1 force and effect; and it is further OfOERB), />DJU::CID Pl-0 DECREED that each party shat 1 pay h Is or her own attorneys' fees and costs without further contdbut ion frtt11 the other party, ex~ cept as otherwise provided in the Findings of Fact ~cl Conc\usions of Law or in the parenting plan executed by the parties; and it is further OfOERID, 1~lJu:x:;EO faNJ DECREED that each party shaf I be reqJired to take DECREE 0:: Dt Ss:>WTlON - 7 Marriage of Hansen Cause t,urber: 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J. 0ROELL AlTORN!;Y AT !.1-,W 105 SECOND AVENU!i.: SWTE'. AOl HOGE: SUH.DJNG SE:ATT'k(i,- 'NASHiNGTON' se1c,1 !2061 624•0130 App. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 - any and atl steps necessary to see that the provis\ons contained in the Findings of Fact aod Conclusions of law and Decree of Dissolution are given fut I force and effect .. Each party shall execute those doaments of conveyance and/or docuents of ti tie so as to effecutate the property division incorporated herein. Each party shat ( deliver to the other party within thirty (30} days of the date of entry of the Decree of Dissolution, those items of personal property awarded to the other \\hich are at the present time tn his or her possession4 Each party shal r det iver to the other those insurance pot ides awarded to the other v,hich are in his or her possession as 1#e11 as those records relating to assets acu-nents and/or such items of personalty. Each party shat I be obi iged to exert his or her est efforts to ca /lNJ OOCREED that prior to rerroving Melissa fran the States, Respondent place ten thousand ool lars ($10,000-00) in his attortrust account with irrevocable instruct ions that said funds remain in the trust account pending Melissa's return. Provided, however, that if rkl i ssa is not returned within five (S) days of her schedu\ed return date, sa\d funds sha1\ be imnadiatefy transferred to Petitioner's attorneyr s trust/general account to be used to pay any and al I attorneys I fees incurred in an atterupt to return I i ssa to the Uni ted States and her 1mther; and it is further OFOERED, /CJU:GED Ar.rJ DECREED that support continue tnt i I the child reaches the age of eig,teen ( 18) years or completes hig-i school, ,..hicltever occurs later, with the court retaining jurisdiction to determine vklether and in what proportion each party should contribute to the cost of post-hig-, school education for the child, said jurisdiction eXµiring if post-majority support is not set prior to DA1ID: Presented by: Copy Received Approved for Entry and l\bt ice 'of Presentation Waived: Oa:::REE. OF OlSSJWTION - 9 tJlarr i age of Hanse., Cause t',lm::ier 87-3-09135-3 0AV10 J. OR0E1..L ATTORNEY AT 1.AW '705 SECQNO AV!;'.NUE $UlTF. 401 HOGf/: BIJII.OlNG . · Se'.ATI'U!, WASHlNGTON 98!04 (2061 &24•01'.3Q App. 25 4 5 JP2.0625E 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECREE CF' OJS=OWT!ON ~ 10 ~'°larriage of Hansen Cause l'brber 87-3-09135-3 - DAVID J. OR0ELL ATi'Ol'!NEY AT I.AW 705 SE:CONO AVl'::NU!:: SUITE 401 HOGE BUILOlNG . SE:ATT'L!::. WASHING'roN 98104 120\'11 e2A·o130 ' App. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - EXHIBlT A lhe fo 11 owing i terns of rea I and (Jersona I property :shou Id be atvarded to petitioner-wife, free and clear of any interest of respondent-husband: 1,. 1986 Toyota Celi ca automobile, subject to any a'ld al I rwegian 15 s i Iver candle holders; (d} N::irwegian silverware; (e} N:>rwegian cake cut16 ter and salad tongs; (fl mo (2) oil paintings; and (g) silver chest. 17 Mdltionally respondent shall receive any and ali ~~dding gifts received frcm re18 spondent *s reiatives or otherwise attributable to respondent 1 s side of the fam19 ily, presently in possession end control of petitioner, with the exception of 20 disputed items of property as set forth in the Findings of Fact and G:>nctosions 21 of Law and Decree of Dissolution; said disputed i terns of property to be sett led 22 in the manner set forth therein; 23 24 6. krf rances upon any real property of petitioner; 4. my and al I ot ..:d lgat ions for income taxes for the years 1988 or sobsequent years; 5. ksy and all separate tbligations of petitioner; 6. A,"1y and all premarital obligations of petitioner .. JP2.0625C EXHIBIT C - 1 Marriage of Hansen Cause Numer: 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J, OR0ELL ATTORNE:Y AT I.AW 705 SECOND AV!::NUE SUITE 4ot HOGE !!Ult.mNG SS:Ai"TL!i'., WAS!-llNGTON 98104 t20Sl 624·0\30 App. 30 1 ?. I EXHIBIT D "" a Respondent-husband should assume a1d pay those ooli gat lons set forth 4 hereon, should hold petitioner-wife harmless therefron, and indem i fy her for any 5 reasonable costs and expense vihkh she milY incur, including attorneys I fees, as 6 a result of his failure to pay said debts or obi igat ions \'.hen die: 7 i. kly and all debts or ®ligations incurred by respondent from GW1d S after date of separation; 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 26 2. k,y and al I separate obi igations of respondent; 3. Pny and al I debts or obligations constituting liens or encurbrances upon any real property of respondent; 4. Poy and all obligati'OODS UGHT t\.-0 SC,i_:'t,,;.,v,._, PRESCRIBED, INDICATE THAT f'.J(rtENl ENDOCERVlCAL D ------~ WST MOUNT HA$ BEEN INFORMED or pQCCS\13,LE RISKS AND SIDE EFfEC"'fS OF S ..-1• lREATMENT UR!'f"l'HRAL, 0 (DOCUMENT ASSENCS OR PRESENCE OF SPERM) H' PREGNANCY WERE OCCUR. RECTAL lx) IN #/H?f /~ND %OF MOTILE/NON MOTILE ORAL Kl ~ 'VAGINA ?male, in no a.cute diJ!'!tress. HEE:NT: EntL:::ely HNL. No exudate or erythema tn the pozterior pharfnx. NECK: Supple ~ithout lym9hadenopatny. LONGS. Clear to auscultation. CA.RDIAC: reg--..11.a.c ;::-ate and rhythm without murmur, .r,..1b or: gallop. · · BREASTS: S;r·trimetrical, Tanner stage ! ; non tender. .i\£00.HZN: Benign~ PositiYe bowel tones, so!t, non tender. No ma$Ses or hepatosplenomegaly. EX'TRZHITIES: Non tender~ PA'.:l::lE~ NAME: PAT:tElrr !-{O:. DA-:r.E~ ?E!XSlCIM: --~-.. --... --,---- , ...... - ~-........- .., --~. ECK.51$0H, HBL!SSA :14-87-78-09 23 JUL 90 Hl\RY S. GISOONS; H.O. 11 tnITVKRSI'r'T OF riASE:l:RG'.!'OH KEOICA~s Harl:;x;lr-vie-~ Hedicai Center ·- University of waahington Medical c2nte Seattle, Washington App. 39 2 .(._ and aymm@tric. Mo ed~. BACK: No rosidu.al f!ndl.nga • froe:t. thelesl.ona described GEN!TAL!A: Tanner stage I female with nocmal external genit~li&~ The:-clitoral. hoodr labia. inajora/mlnora:. were all no.t'lllal. t.ha posterior forch~tte wai> normaJ.. There wa~ some posterio~ labial fusion ncted~ which was new. Tho 'Urethra Md periurethrat tls~ue appeared normeJ.. ':be hymen was: quit a redundant but di.d. reveal a, l-2 ;:in round ori!ide-... -. _-_-. -_ - Tha ·.;a.ginat muc~ea waa not well-·tis'liali::r.ed and no disvcharge w;,,..s noted+ Th& poaterior" fossa revealed a fairly demarcated white area of tissue ln the left p,oaterior foasa. The blood vessels -,.ere probably normal. Peroneal body was normal. the· a.nua. revealed sos:ne laxity, particularly Ln the knee-chest position. Immediately. Thia was consiatent: with tho irregular pattern noted in th~ photographs from 7/8 with an ar,g-ulated notching of tho clrcu~ference of the anus at 3 o'clock in the knee-chest position. Th~ mucosas was vLsuallzetl ~ith prominence oe the anal verge~ No stc~l waa noted, no ditLtal exam was cone. !rnpression: A child with a history of sexual abuse. r-"1 e:xa:n today revealed posterior lat;,ial fs.;sion and oorn'I': tLs$ue in the posterior :ossa suggestive of scar tissue and an um.1s"1al ana.l exam with dilatation and angulation a.t .3 o'clock. All of thei;Hi findings "-'Ol.lld b9 cori;,istent with a. histor,t of i;exual abuse and the photographr,; fr,om tho initial e•taluat1on re·.;ea.led significant erythei:n.,1 around the posterior forchette and, ant'.:l"ri.or p~NTON hereby declares as follows: I have personal knowledge of the matters contained herein and am competent to testify as to the same. I am and have been a social worker since 1959. I am in the employ of Children's Protective Services, a position I have held for the past 22 years. Additionally, I have and do accept referrals through Family Court and private referrals~ It was in the capacity of assisting in a Family Court investigation that I became familiar with the parties in this proceeding and Melissa Eckstrom-Hansen. Even after completion of the Family Court report, r have continued to be involved in this matter as set forth herein. I have regularly supervised the exchanges between Lisa Eckstrom DECLARATION OF ELIZF,BETH STANTON, MSW -1 rn re Marriage of Hansen Cause No. 87-3-09135-3 DAVID AT'TORNEY J, 0RDE:L.L AT LAW ,,1 705 SECOND AVENUE; SUITE 401 HOGE Sl/ll.DING Sl:::A"fTLE'.. WASHINGTON 98104 12cm 1,2.:-01:10 App. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2G and Sig Hansen of their daughter, Melissa. The exchanges took place on Tuesday and Thursday mornings at 7:00 a.m. at Lisa Eckstrom•s I home. In addition, I have supervised the exchanges between Litja I Eckstrom and Melissa's paternal grandmother, Mrs. Hansen. l j The majority of the exchanges that l have witnessed have been when the paternal grandmother picked up Melissa for her · 1.dsit. I stopped going to the door with Mrs. Hansen after Lisa 1 s attorney t advised me that her parents would sue me for trespassing if I "put f foot • 1 on their property. From the street, I have had a full vi1w of the door and the faces of all parties. The behavior of all parties has been consistent through the visits. There is a significant pause before the door is opened. Lisa is at the door with a blanket in her left hand. After a long pause, I can see Melissa climbing the steps to her mother. Lisa is frequently not looking at her, but turns toward her as she comes up the steps. Lisa. puts Melissa's coat on, farewells are prolonged with kisses, Lisa puts he:r arms around Melissa and holds her. In most recent v;eeks, 1 have observed another child at the door and many farewell exchanges take place between that child and Melissa. From my place in the street, it appears as though the goodbyes are to a child going to a terrible fate. Melissa is somehow on most occasions able to v1c1lk out the door and go to her grandmother. On two occasions, she has whimpered, but I have noted there has never been any sign of tears. I have always remained to see Melissa DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH STANTON, MSW ·--2 In re Marriage of Hansen Cause No. 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J. O~DEL.!.. ATTORNEY AT LAW 705 SE;CQNO AVENUE 5UJ1"E 401 HOGE BUILO!NG SEATTLE. WAStt!NGTON 98104 f:'.>Ofil fil:''1·01::10 App. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 13 14 15 1G 17 18 19 2-0 21 22 23 24 25 strapped in the child's seat. and she has always been playful and laughing when she left. l have observed Melissa at her paternal grandparents I ho:me. She is very comfortable there and goes freely through the house organizing her play. Her favorite thing is swinging. On one occasion1 while her fat.her was fishing, I heard her ask for him. There was a period of time \vhen Sig was not permitted to see Melissa. I was asked by the Hanserrn to observe the first hour of the first visit tha.t he had following that period of suspended visits. Melissa had been playing comfortably and having a good time in the living room prior to hir, arrival. When he arrivedr her demeanor changed notably. She beca111e elated and joyful and acted this ont by crawling on the couch giggling and saying "meow meow meow''. This was a very touching moment for everyone present. Since that time, I bave observed another visit at the Hansen home. Again, Melissa was playing comforta.bly in the living room and interacting with her grandparents. Mr. Han sen asked "Where is daddy?" Melissa said, "I don't know". Mr. Hansen said "Oon•t you want to see Daddy?" Melissa said "No", Mr. Hansen then said, ;'Why?" and Melissa r~sponded 1 'No" , Shortl:;{ after this exchange, Sig arrived.. Melissa hid 'Under the table. I looked at her and she was smiling and looking to see if he wonld £ind her. Sig pretended to look for her and then pretended to be leaving because he couldn't find her. She came out laughing. I then observed them playing for DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH STANTON, MSW -3 In re Marriage of Hansen Cause No. 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J. 0F{DEt.L ATTORNEY AT I.AW 705 SE;CONO AVENUE SUITE 401 HOGE SUILDJNG 5E'.A'rrt .. E;:. WASHINGTON 9:8104 App. 44 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 about 45 minutes before I left. Melissa a.sked him to toss her into the air and he did so several times. I noted that she had complete confidence that he would catch her. I also noted that he stopped immediately ·w·hen she aslced him to do so. I have noted Lisa always gives a blanket to Mrs. Hansen when Melissa leaves, but I have never seen Melissa pay any attention to it during the visits I observed. In other exchanges of children whose parents are in custodial disputes, I have consistently observed the sending parent to have the child dressed and at the door or to lend encouragement to the visit, even in cases where I knew the parent had difficulty doing this and probably w:i.t.h good reason. Melissa seems to be left on her ow'n to get to the door and carried through the· situation by what 14 I interpret. to be her affection and trust of her grandmother. 15 ' I have had substantial opportunity to observe the interaction 16 between Melissa and Sigurd Hansen as ,,;ell as the interaction between 17 Melissa and her paternal gra.11.dparents in a professional capacity. 18 Throughout the time I have been involved in this proceeding, I have 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 seen absolutely nothing which would indicate the Melissa has suffered any physical, emotional, mental or sexual abuse at the hands of Sigurd Hansen or his parents or any member of his family. Because of my background, rny employment with Children's Protective Servicest and my mm nature, I am very protective of children, but a:m convinced that Melissa is not at risk while in the care of her DECtARA'l'ION OF ELIZABETH STANTON, MSW -4 In re Marriage of Hansen Cause No. 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J, •RDElL A'f1bPNE'.Y 1'.T LAW 70!5 SECONO AVENUE SUJTE 401 HOGE aun.O)NG SEA11U':, WASHINGTON 9!;!104 f:2061 624•0130 App. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 father or paternal grandparents. THIS DECLARATION is made under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, and the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This Declaration is dated and SIGNED this ~ day of September, 1990 at Seattle, Washington. DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH STANTON, MSW -5 In re Marriage of Hansen Cause No, 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J. 0RDELL ·."" -· ATTORNEY AT LAW 705 SECOND AVENUE SUITE:; 401 HOGE BUILDING SEATTLE. WASHINGTON !;!Bl04 i:>.om 6~4-01.l!O App. 46 ll-5-90 Diane chesterfield r LYNDA BRIDGES MSW. 116 FIRST AVENUE SO!J .. SUITE 333 SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 447-2384 child Protective Services Depertmenc of social and Health Services 1900 3~d Avenue w. Lynnwood, WA N-33-3-98036 Dear ~s. Chesterfield: In resp0nse to our conversation on l0-29-90, this letter is a ::n.:.IT1..rn,ary c: my im:erviews with Melissa Hanson en lG-19-90. I wa;;:; r~o1 ~n~ -les-::;:eci Ma1~ss~ by Lisa Eckstrom,. M~lissars mother, tQ Provide the.tatt~ wh~ cae=-~ +ob• hav • ~g a~iu-~man~ Y~p~~i~"- •o ~:~ ----- --·-~- -c... ,.._..,'-,,I.._. • ._.~}~..,.,.->,..,:,;. - - ...... _ ....... -J ;,;;;,i.,..,. .......... ...,,,. ....,,.,__~--.... .... ---y..,...,...., .... ,,._ .... ,_.~ ~ns:.t:3.ticn. with :.cer fathsr. 1 'I w~nt l:':er to be ~s h'2:althy 3:1':1 ;..~·,_;-;:•;, as she can be. She is preseL~ly very =~i~gy. 3he ~as rsgrEss0a and ::iow is pcn:ty1ng in her :;;:iants. She is refu.sin.g to be bathed in. the ba:h cub. she has nightmares at nisht and s!eeping ad t~ent ?:o~le~s. S~e, overall, seems LO be not the happy little girl she useci to be. 0 ! have not had individual interviews with Lisa nor Missy's fa~he~, Hanson, Therefore, I hava no background information about &his case, nor am I aware of the full extent of previous evaluations or allegations cf sexual abuse. During my first inter-view with Melissa, she seemed quite preoccupied with the dell house bathroom toilet and bathtub. She well spent most of her time forcing the doll to sit on the toiletr as as the bath tub, n1..1merous times. When I attempted to get her :c move to other rooms in the dell house, she kept reverting back ~6 the bathroom where she continued bathing and pottying over and aver again. When I asked Missy if she bathed in the bath tub, she said, "No, the sink. H During her second interview, she skillfully played with puzzles demonstrating axce.ptiona.1 hand eye coordiuat±.on. She was able to quickly put puzzles together that most children her aga would have difficulty managing, In the playroom, there is also a App. 47 c:i.esterfi'i:lci .?.e: Me11s:.s.a • ll-5.,,:90 ?age 2 • family of dolls, consisting ot tour dolls, male/female (father and mothe~) and two male/female children, The dolls are anatomically correct, soft fabric dolls, Often, ! u.se .:nese dolls £or evaluatino a child 1 s level of attachment and rest>cnsiveness to his/her family members. In our play, I placed the little blond chil~ doll i~ the ar~s of the mommy doll and asked ~hat she was doiztg. She replied, "she is hugging her. 0 I then placed the ternals child doll in the arms of the daddy doll and asked what he was doing. She :::epl i eci, nEe is hurting her potty pot." I then askeci., "Whe!'e .1.s hi.;r potty pot?u she then pointed to the vaginal area of the clothed female child dell. I then asked Missy where her pctcy po: was and she pointed to her own vaginal area, I asked, "Does the ii~tle girl have her clothes on when the daddy is .nurting h.e:r in s:.::.e potty· pot? 0 She .said, "No." S'.:le then took the ciol ls cl cthe.s off. I then asked where is her potty pot and sh'!;! =esponded by poin~ing again to the vaginal area of the doll, which was :1ow unclothed. I then asked, rtDoes the daciciy do 11 have his .-;,...,.,...,.<: '"'";' t r she saici, "No." she then took the clothes off th$ ci~dciy doll and point<':!d to his penis. she stated, nEe hurts her wi .:h his w-ear:.i e." r th'.;!n asked, ''How does hse hurt her with his wean:1.e? Show me. 0 She placed the two dolls together and then :~rsw ~hem on the floor. At that point, she curled up i~ a feta! posit:oc wit~ her legs drawn to her chest, physically scooting away :=rorn me.. ~he ther1 said, "Ycru do it .. rr I th.en s.sked. nDo-as yc,11r- i~ flu::~-: yo 11 in JC·U~ ~atty po::?lt ar:ci she said., tr:tes. rt I askecif nzices !!~ U.utc you wit~ his weanie in yo?..1..r potty pot? rt and she said, nYes" 0 Missy appeared very tr:gncened. Her facial expressions and behavior caused me to beleive she was very upset and afraid. I reassured her we were going to step playing with the dolls. She :::,.en ca.me over and wrapped her a.::-rns aror.h"'td my neck and gave me a v~ry intense hug. ! then comforted her and we proceeded to play again with the doll house. During ihe third inte~view with Meliss~ on 10-22-90, she again was playing with the doll house, primarily the bathroom. She was much quieter during this visit. We talked about the visits with her father and I asked her if she enjoyed visiting with him. She said ... 0 No, daddy hurts my potty pot. 0 r then asked if anyone else. hu:tt !i.Cr, ;'Dici. your mornmy hurt you? 0 she said, nHo." "Did your grandmother hurt you? Did your gt'andfather .hurt you? Did a friend hurt you?'' !n asking this series of questions, she replied each time, ''No, my daddy hurts me." ! then asked, ''Did Morn.11y tel 1 you. to say Daddy hurt you?" and she replied, nNo. u I also have drawings where Missy discloses that her father hurt her potty pot and wet on her leg. Since I em net evaluating Missy for sexual abuse, I conveyed App. 48 chesterfield ?.~: .:;felissa ll-5-·90 ?age 3 • this information to John Dunne, H.D., the court appoint~d evaluator, so he could continue the evaluation of Melissa. After conr.acting John Dunne, I contacted Larry Vey at CPS on 1-0~19-90, who suggested that I make a direct referral ta CFS intake. ! spake with intake on 10-23-90. an 10-25-90, I spoke with Candis at CPS, t,.;"n,o :.•::'.ld: my statement. I .spoke with Diane Chesterfield at CPS en 10-30-90. At this poi;:it, my primary ohjecti•;e is ta assist Maiii;:.:-::a, in resolving the trauma she beleives has occurred to he;; t~~oug~ a ~herapeutic r~lationship~ Lynaa Bridges MSW App. 49 ' I Southlake Professional Group Renton Plaza Building John E. Dunne, JVi.D., F.A.P.A. ~ Child Psychiatry Wren Hudgins, Ph.D. • Psychology Barnett M. Kaplan, M.D. • Psychiatry Clinical Associates Pablo R. Proano, M.D .• P.S. • Psychiatry Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D .• Psychology Barbara Mayers, Ph.D.• Psychology Lee Carlisle, NLD. ~ Child Psychiatry Barbara Barry, Ph.D.· Psychology PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION SIG tIANSEN NOVEMBER 19, 1990 REFERRAL INPORMATION 1400 Talbot Road South, Suite 203 Renton, WA 98055 (206) 235-7383 Sig IIansen was referred for psychologic:al evaluation th.rough Dr. John Dunne as a component of his psychiatric evaluation witb respect to parenting responsibilities of Sig's three year-·old daughter, Melissa. Specifically, Sig and Melissa's mother, Lisa Eckstrom, is asking the court to assiat them in determining appropriate parenting responsibilities with respect toward Melissa. ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS UTILIZED In order to complete this ev~luation t:he following assessment instruments were administered: One 50 minute clinical interview, dated 10-12-90. Administration of the Minnesota Inventory, (MMPI), dated 09-24-90. Multiphasic Personality Administration of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II, dated 09-24-90. nmIAVIORAL ODSERVATIONS Mr. Uansen did not attend his first appointment, as there seemed to he a scheduling mix-up. He did however, make the second scheduled appointment and w,'!ls on time to meet the examiner. Mr. Hansen was casually dressed, but wearing a gold watch and a diamond ring. Ile spoke easily with the examiner, showing no signs of ,gross psychological or cognitive impairment. It is the examiner's opinion that this evaluation is an adequate representation of Mr. Hansen's current level of psyc:hological fiinctioning. Mr. rransen looks his stated age and talks with a slight accent indicative of his bilingual abilities in both Norwegian and t:1nglish. ne appeared somewhat angry during the evaluation as he spi:::,ke about his feelings of being manipulated App. 50 PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION RE: SIG HANSEN PAGE: TUREE It is possible that he is in.vol ved in a sophisticated attempt to present himself in a favorable light. Sig is reporting a great deal of somatic complaints, some of which may be a reaction to stress and conflict. Sig might be described as self-centered, emotionally mature, demanding, and manipulative. Ile has little insight into the psychological nature of his problems, and ·when under stress, he is unlikely to experience any subjective distress. While Sig is somewhat friendly and outgoing, his relationships tend to be somewhat superficial and involve excessive demands for attention and affection. When important values are threatened, it is likely that Sig will become blameful of others while denying that he is angry and upset. Mr. Dansen also could be described aa having unjustified jealousy, a poorly regulated temper, and is very sensitive of other people's opinions and actions. Mr. Dansen would more than likely have a difficult time of forgivin.g others even after minor disagreements, which can lead to power struggles with those he is closest to. The results of the MCMI tend to corroborate the finding$ of the MMPI~ With the results of the MCMI, thei;e appears to be a tendency of avoiding self disclosure, It is possible that Mr. Hansen is not pz>.1;ticula.dy psychologically minded but also that he is,. perhaps, somewhat evasive. While he produced a valid profile, it is important to note that !\.ome $Cores may be lower than what they in fact actually are. Mr. Hansen could be described as: being ver:y concerrie:d about getting exte;:nal approval and respect from others. He conforms to the expectations of others and is very adaptable. This ada_pt.abilit:y seems to be a way of dealin9 with his inability to admit to psychological problems. Thus, by be:coming so adaptable and re~dy to modify his behavior, he avoids criticism which he expects for his shortcomings. Mr. Hansen h,:ts a strong fear of expre~rning negative emotions and losing his control. ne will deny any discord or unhappy feelings which will again make his public self much less prone to criticism. Ile fears making mistakes and provoking humiliating comments. Mr .. flans.en may tend toward perfectionism and an over concern with minor public appearances. Surges of ang:err however, can periodically break through, bu.t as a result of his struggle to repress these urges, he may have a history of tension and somatic problems. CONCLUSION Mr. Dansen is a 24 year-old male referred for brief psychological evaluation through Dr. John Dunne. Results indicate Mr. Hansen to be somewhat defensive about admitting to problems within the -- evaluation but also within fhe - wodd at large. Ue is quite concerned with making mistakes and, therefm.-e, will become very adaptable in order to avoid criticism and rejection by others. When in conflict with others1 he will also become hlarneful and App. 51 PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALDATION RE: SIG DANSEN PAGE: TWO for his property and material wealth. It was somewhat difficult for Mr. Uansen to talk about his daughter, Melissa, and, in fact, it was only when the examiner brought her up specifically that he was able to talk about her. Mr. Hansen instead chose to talk a great deal about his ex-wife and the wrong doings that occurred during their courtship, dating, and separation and divorce proceedings. TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION M.r. Hansen reports growing up in the Seattle area with an older and younger brother. ilis father is a fisherman, and subsequently w,':is gone from the home for extended periods of time. Sig speaks v~ry highly of both of his parents and describes hi$ mother as being a tough woman who was quite capable of maintaining a household when Sigrs father was away. Sig, however, also speaks of his father with a great deal of respect and, in fact, states that at one level as a child he knew that he needed to obey his father or the consequences would be severe Lf he did not. Mr. Hansen reports doing average in school; having graduated from high school. ne began working with his father as a fisherman at age 12 and, in fact, would at times be late for the beginning of school, as he wa$ busy working with his father. Mr. Hansen did not date in high school and reports that he did not even kiss a girl until the age of 18. Lisa was his second girlfriend ~hom he met through mutu.al friends. 'I'hey co:t"responded a great deal through letters,, and after Lisa beca.me pregnant there was a mutual decision to get married. However, initially, when Lisa found out she was pregnant$ Sig wanted to ter,m:inate the pregnancy, whereas Lisa didn't. According to Sig, the couple was mar-ried in October, Sig not remembering the exa.ct date. They were separated in November and their d,'iughter was born in April. The wedding was held at his parents' house and the couple had a honeymoon in Hawaii for 9 days.. Sig reports this as being terrible, as there was a great deal of fighting during the honeymoon. Shortly after they returned from. the honeymoon, Lisa left to go live with her parents and file for divorce. Sig was not present for the birth of his daughter and :found out several days aftet" she was born, then went to the hos:pit-al to see her. Sig reports wanting to be more involved in his daughter, Melissa's, life so that his parents can raise her, as be has a great deal of concern about how Melissa is currently being raised. The results of the ~~1PI reflect a valid profile and that Sig was cooperative and understood the questions. Results of the Mr-1PI indicate Sig is somewhat moody and experiencing periodic psychological distress. Sig has relatively good ego strength, positive self-concept, and is fairly adaptable and resourceful. App. 52 PSYCHOLOGICAL EVAL0ATION RE: s:IG HANSEN PAGE: FOOR defensive, rarely acknowledging his contribution to the dif£icul ty. Mr. Hansen denies ps:tchological components of his behavior, and rather tends to react to stress by denying it verbally but with resulting somatic problems. With respect to parenting issues, the examiner has some concerns about his abilitx to work with others and c:ornp.i:ornise, rather than be totally adaptable or quite angry. It is also important that he be able to relate to stress and be able to acknowledqe his own shortcomings. Overall, the examiner finds no eviden~e in this evaluation to indicate that ht;) would be an inadequate parent. Respectful~ii) submitted by, - /1&-L--~,,-,- v--- is P. -Mayberry, Ph.D. Licensed Clinical Psychologist JPM/tvv App. 53 Southlake Professional Group ·- John E. DuMe, M.D., F.A..P,A. • Child Psychiatry Wren Hudgins, Ph.D. - Psychology Barnett M. Kaplan, M..D. ~ Psychiatry Clinical Associates Pal>lo R. Proano, M.D., P.S. - Psychiatry Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D. - Psychology Barbara .Mayers, Ph.D. - Psychology Lee Carlisle, .M.D. • Child Psychiatry Barbara Barry, Ph.D. • Psychology PSYCOOLOGICAL EVALUATION LISA ECKSTROM DOD 12-20- 65, AGE 24 NOVEMDER 19, 1990 Renton Plaza Building 1400 Talbot Road South, Suite 203 Renton, WA 98055 (206) 235-7383 Lisa Eckstrom was referred for psychological evaluation through Dr- John Dunne as a component of his psychiatric evaluation with respect to parenting responsibilities of Lisa's three year old daughter, Melissa. SJ?ecifically, Lisa and Melissa's father, Sig IIansen, are asking the court to assist them in determining a1;>propriate parenting responsibilities with respect toward Melissa. ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS UTILIZED In order to complete this ev-aluat.ion, the .follo\'i'ing assessment instruments were administered: 60 minute interview with Lisa, dated 10-2,6-90. Administration of the Inventory, dated 9- 11- 90. Minnesota Multiphasic Personal i ty Administration of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II , dated 9-20-90. DEJlAVIOR AND ODSERVATIONS Lisa was on time for her scheduled appointment with the examiner. She is a very attractive woman looking some~hat younger than her stated age. She spoke freely with the examiner but also appeared somewhat upset that she needed to engage in the evaluation process. She had di.:fficulty in feeling that people did, in fact, believe her o:r: supf?ort the concerns she bad ~ith respect to Melissa's father. She seemed to feel that no one was, in fact , listening to her and that her daughter would continue to be at risk. Throughout the evaluation, there continued to be good- eye contact and there was no evidence of gross psychological or cognitive impairment. It is this examiner's opinion that this evaluation represents an adequate level of Lisa's current level of psychological functioning. App. 54 - PSYCllOLOGIC.AL EVALGATION RE: LISA ECKSTROM PAGE 2 TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS Lisa reports growing UJ:? in Edmonds the_ 5th of 6 children. !1er parents are currently married and living in Edmonds, and tisa lives with them. In school she reports doing adequately, and after high scbool went to study the travel business at a community college. She then enrolled as a medical transcribel'.' and eventually got a job with a plastic surgeon. Lisa reports getting laid off, as she was quite tire, blaming Sig for taking her out late at night. She then moved to California where she modeled and sold condominiums. Lisa reports that she got to know Sig through letters and phone calls, and that when he was nice to her she couldn't have asked for a better partner. rrowever, Lisa also states that he hit her prior to their marriage but that she didn't report this. She also states that she did not know about Sig's heavy smoking . or drinking and that on their honeymo.on he drank so much that he threw up . Lisa also reports that on the honeymoon he hit her and that she filed a police report regarding this incident. Lisa states that she planned to marry Sig in the summer of 1988, but that due to her une,-pected pregnancy they got married in October, 1987 . Lisa states that the couple went to counseling several times but that Sig punched her and that she, at that point, chose to end the marriage and, as she states, chose the bab:'.i· over the marriage~ Lisa is quite concerned about her daughter, Melissa, and feels that no on is, in fact, addressing the concerns regarding her daughter. She fears for Melissa's safety when Melissa is with her father and has started Melissa in counseling due to Melissa 1 s statements regarding her alleged se,;.ual abuse. Currentl:r, Lisa is not working , as she was in an auto accident and is unable to work at this time, It is difficult for Lisa to envision or support Sig having any relationship with Melissa, particularly as she now has concerns rega.rding Melissa's safety. Ilowever, the examiner feels that Lisa is not. able to envision any shared communication between the couple with respect toward any parenting responsibilities. Results from the MMPI reflect results in which the validity must be taken as being doubtful. Responses that were. given by Lisa are very guarded, reflecting an unwillingness to admit to personal problems or weaknesses that at'e beyond her ability to solve or con.trot. There£01:e, results of the MMPI need to be taken somewhat tentatively. Dased on Lisa's results, she might be described as being somewhat restless and independent and enjoying variety and change. She would be described as being capable of being assertive and of identifying and expressing anger appropriately. Ilowever, Lisa also has the ability to overcontrol her anger and can, at times,· be out of touch with he.t" rootiv~es and feelings.. She wants very much to present a good public front but periodically can act out her anger in perhaps App. 55 PSYCilOLOGICAL EVALUATION RE: LISA ECKSTROM PAGE 3 - unpredictable outbursts. As rejecti on is painfu l for her, she is perhaps somewhat cautious about confronting others in a faceto-face manner. Therefore, she might try to please people and can, at times, selectively report things in order to protect other peoples's feelings. It is possible that people might mist~ke Lisa's emotional reserve for being cold or indi fferent. The results of the MCMI tend to substantiate those of the M.'1PI. Results of the MCMI indicate Lisa having a strong need to be seen by others favorably and how easily she will give in t o the wishes of others, particularly those in authority. She tries very hard to be considerate and cooperative without a great deal of self will or personal desi~e. Lisa will go out of her way to appear capable and confident in her attributes, although she feels somewhat inadequate and unsure of herself. ll.ny sign of disapproval from others causes her a great deal of tensiion. Rather than having this happen, she will become overly respectful,perhaps even ingratiating with those she perceives in authority. Periodically Lisa's anger may overpo~er her sense of propriety. nowever , a fear of exposing these feelings can lead to being overly organized and showing rigid self~restraint. She does not trust others to provide the approval and security she desires and is, therefore, feeling a great deal 0£ tension right now. Although Lisa may appear conscientious and capable, she at times, can be indecisive, want to procrastinate, and can be easily upset by deviations in her daily routine. She wants very much to appear in a good light and, therefore, adheres to social conventions. She dreads making mistakes or taki.ng risks as they could be humiliating for her or provoke disapprmral from persons in authori ty. Lisa has a rigorous internal conscien ce and seeks to control her angry urges and thought. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lisa Eckstrom is a 24 year-old woman participating in a psychological evaluation to help determine parenting responsibilities with respect to her two year-old daughter. Lisa had a difficult time in acknowledging any problems and yet is quite distressed that people will not acknowledge her difficulty. She's tense and worried but lacks insight as to the psychological component of her dif ficulties. She is very much su;bject to others' opinions of her and will alter her behavior in order to present a good public front. She is very dependent on others' opinions and behavior and gears her life toward pleasing those that ~he ca r es about. While there is no indication that- Lisa would not be an adequate parent for her daughter, there is - ·' App. 56 ·, PSYCUOI.OGICAL EVALOATION • RE: LISA ECKSTROM PAGE 4 • concern with respect toward her ability to be asse.rti\Te as well as to acknowledge Melissa's father's role in her daughter's life, i.f, in .fact, there ca.n be a safe rel~tionship between the two. Respectfully .submitted by T Janis P. Mayberrjt, Ph.D. Licensed Clinical Psychologist JPMJtvv App. 57 John E. Dunne, M.D .• F .A.P .A. - Child Psychiatry Wren Hudgins, Ph.D. - Psychology Barnett M. Kaplan; M.D. • Psychiatry Clinical Associates Pablo R, Proano, M.D., P.S. - Psychiatry Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D. - Psychology Barbara Mayers, Ph.D. • Psychology Lee Carlisle; M.D. • Child Psychiatry Barbara Barry, Ph.D.• Psychology • Renton Plaza Building 1400 Talbot Road South, Suite 203 Renton, WA 98055 (206) 235~ 7383 PSYCilIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS POR MELISSA 11:Cf\STROM-IIANSEN NOVEMDER 26, 1990 Mother Lisa Dawn Eckstrom, Age 24 7503 228th Ave SW Ed.11orids, WA 9 8 CJ 2 0 Telephone: 774-6409 Attorney for Mother Peter D. Francis 1600 Seattle Tower 1218 3rd Ave Seattle, WA 98101-3080 Telephone: 682-9910 Dependant Child father Sigurd Johnny Dansen, Age 24 17107 76th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98020 Telephone: 745-2065 Attorney for Father David J. Ordell 705 2nd Ave, Suite 401 Uoge Building Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 624-0130 Melissa Dawn Eckstrom-Uansen, Age 2 yrs. 6 mos. nirthdate; 04-22-88 IDENTIFYING DATA AND REASON FOR EVALUATION Melissa is the only child from the marriage of her parents, Sig Dansen and Lisa Eckstrom, who separated 5 months prior to her birth. Sig Hansen works as a corruneroial fisherman on his father~s boat in Alaskan waters and Lisa Eckstrom is unemployed, al though she has 1.vorked as a model, and an offic,e worker in the past.. stg recently moved into his own house and Lisa, and Melissa live in the home of her parents. Melissa visits her father twice a week and every other weekend when he is not away fishing. There had been so raany conflicts between Lisa and Sig that their Parenting Plan called for psychological evaluations of all parties if further allegations arose. In the past 6 months Lisa has alleged that Sig has assaulted her and also has sexually ORIGINAL App. 58 • I PSYCTIIATRIC ASSESSMENT RB: MDLISSA BCKSTROM-DANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 2 abused Melissa. These allegations prompted the agreed order of psychological evaluation of all parties, including both sets of grandparents. Although the cost of the evaluation was originally to have been divided equally between the parties, Sig Uansen agreed to pay the entire amount pending t'eview by the court. SOURCES OF INFORMATION l:'or the purpos(! of this evaluation the following interviews were conducted: 09=26-90 10~·08-90 10~10-90 lO-ll-90 10--12~·90 10-17-90 10-18··90 11-05-90 U-07-90 11-07-90 One hour interview with the One hour interview with the One hour interview with the One hour intervie~ with the One hour interview with Sverre and Snefryd Uansen. father, Sigurd £fan sen. mother, Lisa Eckstrom. f<'lther. mother. the paternal grandparents, One half hour session with MeJissa nansen and her mother followed by one half hour ses~ion alone with the evaluator. One hi:il f hour with Melissa Il<'!nsen and her father followed by one half hour session alone with the evaluator. One hour session w.il:h Mel:issa ilIH1sen. One hour interview with Victor Larson, guardian ad litem for Meliss,9 Llar1sen. , !>LS. w.' One hour interview with the mat~rn~l gr~ndparents, Theodore and Jean Eokstrom. f'or the purposes of thi!'; e\'";d,uation the fol lowing telephone conversations occurred: 01-12-90 T.C. 08--17-90 T.C. 08-23 90 T.C. 0 9~10·· 90 T.c. 09-11-90 T.C • . 09-12-90 T.C. 09"•17w90 T.C. 09-26-90 T.C. 09-W--90 T.C. 10-05-90 T.C. 10-10-90 T.c. 10-11-90 't.C. 10~18~90 T.C. 10-19-90 'I'. C. from David Ordel], attorney for father. from David Ordell's office. from David Ordell's office. from Lisa Eckstrom. to Lisa Eckstrom. to Peter Francis, attorney for mother. from Sig Hansen. to Davi.] Ordell. to Peter Francis. f1-om Sig Hansen. from Sig Hansen. from David Ordell. from Sig Hansen. from Sig Hansen. App. 59 f , I PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MELISSA ~CKSTROM-IJA.NSBN 11-26-90 PAGE 3 10-22-90 10-22-90 10~·23'"·90 10-29-90 l0-31-90 11-01-90 11-01-90 11-02-90 11-06-90 11-06-90 11-·06-90 11-07-90 ll-08-90 11-08-90 ll-08-90 11-08-90 11-08 90 11-08-90 11-,12·"90 ll-15-90 11-19-90 ll·-19-·90 11-21-90 T.C. from Linda Dridges, M.s.w. T.C. to Lisa Eckstrom. T.C. from Lisa Eckstrom returned. T.C. from David Ordell. T.c. from Diana Chesterfield, CPS caseworker. T.c. from Victor Larson, M.s.w., guardian ad litem for Melissa ITansen-Bckstrom. T.C. from David Ordell. T.C. from Charles Davis, D.MIN., former therapist for Sig and Lisa nansen. T.c. to Pete~ Prancis. T.C. to David Ordell. T.C. from Mr$. nansen, paternal grandmother. T.c. from Diana Chesterfield. T.C. to Peter Prances. T.C. to David Ordell. T.c. to Linda Dridges, M.s.w~ T.C. to Linda Dtidges, M.s.w. T.C. to William Forney, M.o., Pediatrician for Melissa Uansen-Eckstrom. T.c. to Elizabeth Stanton, M.s.w. T.C. from David Ordell. T.C. from Peter Francis. T.C. to Larry Voie, CPS caseworker. T.C. to Peter Francisf office. T.C. from David Ordell. For the purpose of this evaluation the following documents were reviewed; 01) ITornily Court Par~nt Questionnair(;; f;or :t,isa Eckstrom, undated approximately 1988. 02) Family Court Parent Questionnaire for Sigurd Dansenr undated approximately 1988. 03) Family Court Custody and Visitation Report by Michelle Gregg, dated 01-20-89. 04) Motion and Declaration for Continuance of Trial Date, dated 01-26-89. 05) Order of Continuance, dated 02-08-89. 06) Declaration of Tim nai-tnian; dated 06-02-89. 07) Declarations of Jean and Theodore Eckstrom, dated 06 08- 88. 00) Permanent Parenting Pl~ri, dated 07-26-89. 09) Responsive Declaration of Lisa Eckstrom, dated 10-24-89. lO> Replied Declaration of S:iguxd Hansen, dated 10-25-89. 11) Temporary Order for Protection from Domestic Violence, dated 05-09-90. App. 60 • PSYCliIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MEL! SSA ECl{STROM- UANS r:rn 11-26-90 PAGB 4 • 12J Declaration of Counsel (David J. OrdellJ. dated 05-10-90. 13) One Year Order .tor Protection from Domeistic Violence, dated 05-10-90. 14) Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem, dated 05-15-90. 15J Medical Records for Melissa Eckstrom from Uarborview Medical Center Emergency Roomr dated 07-08-90 to 07-14-90. 16) Temporary Order for Protection from Domestic Violence, dated 07-09-90. 17) Declaration of Snefryd Tiansen, dated 07-10-90. 18) Declaration of Laila Perkingstad, dated 19) Declaration of Rlizaheth Stanton, dated 07-10-90. 20) Declaration of Johan Manns 21) Decl~ration of David J. Ordell, dated 22) Order, Case #90-2-02747-1, dated 23) Declaration of Marcy Rust, dated 07-16-90. 24) Temporary Restraining OJ:der a.nd Order. to Show Cause, dated 07-17",90. 25) Officers Statement, net. J. Jones, dated 07-11-90. 26) Statement of Jane Eckstrom, dated 07-20-90. 27) Declaration of Michelle Gregg, dated 01-20-90. 28) Declaration of J~ne Eckstrom, dated 29) Declaration of Ronald T. Eckstrom. dated 07-23-90. 30) Let teer to the evaluator from David ~T. Ordel 1, dated 07-26-- 90. 31) Letter RE: Polygraph Ex.and nation of Sigurd ,J. tJansen bf Terry J. Dall, dated 07-30-90. 32) Letter to Lisa D. Eckstrom from Paul, Stern, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, dated 0B-06-90. 33) Letter to Paul Stern f rora J~mes Martin Roe, dated 08-07-90. 34) Video tape of Melissa Eckstrom-·Hansen in tho?. Hansen house, dated from 0B-16-90 to 09-16-90. 35) Sworn statement from Ronald T. Eckstrom, dated 09-11-90. 36) Sworn Statement of Jean Eckstrom, dated 09-12-90. 37) Motion to Terminate Visitation and for Other Releas~, dated 09-18~90. 38) Sworn Statement of Peter D. Francis, dated 09-18-90. 39) Declaration of Sigurd UanRan. dated 09-19-90. 40) Order to Show Cause, RB: Contempt, dated 09-19-90. 41) Declaration of Snefryd Uansen, dated 09-19-90. 42) Sworn Statement of Peter D. Francis in Opposition to Motion to Remove Supervised Visitation, dated 09-24-90. 43) Sworn Statement of Lisa Eckstrom in Opposition to Motion fol" Contempt and Other Relief, dated 09-24-90. 44) P.8!sponding Declaration of Sigurd Uanse.n, dated 09-24=90. 45) Declaration of Elizabeth Stanton, M.s.w., dated 09-25-90. 46) Reply Declaration of Snefryd Hansen, dated 09-26-90. 47) Declaration of Marcy Drodet, dated 09-26 90. App. 61 :1 • PSYCDIATRIC ASSESSMENT RB: MELISSA ECKSTROM-ITANSEN .11-26-90 PAGE 5 • 43} Deposition upon Oral Testimony of Jean Eckstrom, d::tted 09- 26-90. 49) Letter to the evaluator from David J. Ordell, dated 09-28- 90. 50) Letter; to the evaluator from Peter D. l:'rances, dated 10-02~ 90. 51) Letter to Lisa Eckstrom from the evaluator, dated 10-17-90. 52) Video tape of Sig Hansen and Melissa, d;;.ted 10-25-90. 53) A family drawing jointly done by Linda Dridges, M.S.W. and t1e1:i.ssa Ec:kstrom-Uansen, dated 11-07-90. (copy attached) 54) Letter to the evaluator from David J. Ordell, dated 11-13- 90. 55) Report of psychological evaluation of Lisa Eckstrom b_y ~Tanis P. Mayberry, Ph.D., dated 11-19-90. 56) Report of psychological evaluation of Sigurd nansen by Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D., dated 11-19-90. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT nrs·:roRY The fa:d.lowing summary is compiled from ,"¼ll sources. It is not meant to represent "findings of fact" but only the evaluators best understanding of the significant hiatory. Where discrepancies of information exist from different sourcee, this will, be noted as much as possible. RBCENT U!STORY Sometime in March or early April, 1990t Melissa t~ld her :maternal grRndmother that her father had touched her "potty pot". At the time Melissa was visiting her father intermittently at the paternal grandparents home where lie lived. This was reported to Children's Protective Services in Snohomish County but no action was taken. Somewhere in this same time period Lisa notified the Edmonds police that Sig was in town and would be arriving at her residence at a particular time to pick up Melissa. At the time Sig had an outstanding warrant for his arrest because of hia failt:u-e to respond to a DWI cha.r:ge in late 1989. The police did arrive and arrest Sig when he came to pick up Melissa. On May 8, when Sig an:-ived to pick u.p Meli$Za fo1~ hi~ 'regular daytime Tuesday visit, Lisa, who believed that he did not have a valid driver's license, asked if his mother was with him. Sig ·· indicated that she was and when Lisa realized that Sig had lied she became alarmed and tried to grab Melissa when Sig waa trying to put her_ into t.he car seat. Some kind of an altercation occurred at that time between Sig and Lisa, although they're versions are quite different. According to Sig, he was in the driver's seat, strapping Melissa into her c~r seat,. Lisa opened App. 62 • PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MELISSA ECJtSTROM-HANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 6 • the door, reached over him and tried to grab Melissa. De pushed her out of the way, told her to stay clear, closed the car door and, backed out of the driveway. He denied that he eve:r hit or harmed Lisa in any way. Lisa, on the other hand, said that Melissa was screaming, that he grabbed her by the wrist and threw her to the ground twice. It was not clear from her description whether this occurred while Sig was still in the car. Later that same dayr Melissa's paternal great-grandfather was arriving at Sea-Tac Airport from Norway. The plane was late in arriving and Sig ma.de an attempt to notif;t Lisa of the delay through his attorney, since he could not call her directly because of the restraining order. Lisa did not get the message that there would be a delay in returning Melissa. She ,.;ent. to the Uansen hou.se and waited for them at a 7-11 parking lot nearby. Dy the time the Uansen ts arrived borne, jnst before 4; 00 pm, Lisa was intensely angry. Again, there wae a confrontation, although only verbal- Again, the two stories are quite different. Lisa describes Mr. nansen as very ~ngry and physically threat~ning and Sig describes Lisa as enraged and accusatory. It was in this highly charged atmosphere that Melissa returned to her mother. On July 1, Sig moved into a house that he had purchased in Edmonds. July 7 and 8, were to be the first overnight visit for Melissa at his new house. Lisa was apparently quite anxious about this and called numerous times that evening to talk to Melissa. When Sig and his friend. Johan Manns, who was there ~isiting with his wife, refused to let Lisa ta~k with Melissar she apparently became verbally abusive. The neKt mornini;_1 when Sig and Melissa were at the patenvd grandparents home, Lisa again callsd frequently demanding to talk with Melissa. Apparently Melissa did not want to talk with her mot.her but Lisa could n1:,t accept this. Nhen Melissa was ret.uxned to the Ed:;!i,;trorn household later that day, there was a birthday party in progress for one of Lisa's brothers. In contrast to Lisa's highly agitated state, described by Sig, ~1ohan Manns, and Mrs. nansen, Lisa described herself as calm when Melissa returned home. Melissa changed into a bathing suit and played with other children who were in a wading pool in the backyard. She apparently complained of »an owie on my butt" but no one pursued this. Also at this same time, approximately an hour or so after Melissa returned home, two "M" shaped marks were noticed on her back. The i:-dze of thoSe marks are not clear to this evaJtiator. nowever, again, no one responded with alarm about these marksr attributing them to natur•l causes. These marks were variously described as a rash or scratches, perhaps like a blunt abrasion. That evening when Mrs. Bckstrom was giving Melissa and another child a bath, Melis~a continued to complain of pain in her anal App. 63 • PSYCUIATRIC ASSESSMENT RB: MELISSA ECKSTROM-UANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 7 • area. When Mrs. Eckstrom finally examined this directly, ahe noticed a protuberance of the rectum and that the area seemed blue or discolored. She described th~ anus a • bqing "open". Children's Protective Services were called and on their advice Melissa was taken to narborview Medical Centers Emergency Room where she was ex.:un±.ned by Paula Lozarro; M. D., a pediatric resident. she noted erythema of the labia area and possible dilatation of the anus. Six days later Melissa was brought back to Dr. Lozarro for re-evaluation by Lisa's sister-in-law, Jane Eckstrom, (Lisa was not feeling well enough herself to take Melissa) because the family had noticed a bluish area near the anus. Dr. Lozarro indicated that there was no bluing and bruising but that the perinea! body had a bluish hue that was within normal limits (NP. the perineal body is a small bump in the midline between the vagina and anus.) At that time, Meliasa a 1 so told Dr. Lo;;;arro th;t ''daddy puts his .finger in my potl:.y pottt. At that time, another CPS report was made. After an investigation by Larry Voie, the case was closed because he felt the mother was taking appropriate action to protect Melissa. There were further changes in the visitation arrangements so that initially only the paternal grandpat:ents cc>uld be with Melissa, and after two visits the father could be included but the father could not have any sepBrate time unsupervised by the paternal grandmother. On Aug~ 30, Melissa made a st?!;temeht to the maternal grandmother, Mrs. Eckstrom, that "daddy pottied on my leg". This was later repeated to the paternal grandmother. This evaluation was begun in late September. In mid-qctober, Melissa began seeing Linda Dridgesr MSW, at Lisa's instigation even though this had been specifically prohibited by recent court agreements. At the initial session with Linda Dridges, Melissa said her daddy poked her with his "weeny" and th,~t her fat:her hurt her "potty". Linda Dridges made a report to Children's Protective Services. 'l'his report was ir-1vestigated by Diana Chesterfield, who had also handled the report in March or April, The parties agreed that Melissa could continue to visit her paternal grandparents but have no further contact with her father pending the outcome 0£ this eva 1 nation. Just prior to th;i.$ last CPS report, Melissa told her father in a videotaped conversation, th.::..t he had not touched her potty. PAST UISTORY Lisa and Sig met in l 986 and dated sporad1caJ . .t y for two years, mostly by long distance, since Sig spent 8 to 9 months a year fishing in the coastal waters of Alaska. At least at times there were intense emotional upheavals in this relationship and on at least two occasions they mutually decided to end the App. 64 ') ' • PSYCDIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MELISSA BCf\STROM-IIANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 8 • relationship. Lisa wa• considerably more intereated in marriage than Sig, and it was Li$a, apparently, who repeatedly talked about marriage, engagement rings, houses, etc. Early in 1987, Lisa moved to California where she worked part time as a model and managed an apartment complex with a friend. During the time she was in California, Sig visited her several times. Then in August she became pregnant with Melissa. The pregnancy precipitated their decision to roa,n:Y. However, their relationship continued to be turbulent: There was intense conflict about what to name the baby. Sig wanted an ethnic Norwegian name and Lisa wanted a more common American name. At the wedding, Lisa claimed that Sig was drinking heavily, although no one else noticed that there was a problem. On their flight to Dawaii for their honeymoon, they sat separately, apparently because Sig ~anted to smoke cigarettes and Lisa wanted to sit in the non-smoking section. The honeymoon was very turbulent with many arguments. Sig left several times, once for an extended period of time overnight, and drank heavily. Ile acknowledged coming back to their room once so drunk that he vomited in the bathroom. T,,isa callqd her mother repeatedly each day ber::ause she was so upset. After their return to Edmonds, the arguing continued. Apparently, Lisa would spend most of each day with her mother, talking with her about the situation. When the two of them would argue would leave. Apparently, during this time he continued to drink heavily. During thig time Lisa claimed that Sig was physically abusing her, although the only indication of that were observed were some bruising on the upper eye lids seen by her mother. The final separation occurred about 4 to 6 weeks after the wedding. Sig went to Norway uto clear his mind". After his return, Lisa wanted to reconcile but he refused. She appat·ently was guite enraged with him because he refused to reconcile. Following that they had little to do with each other. Again, Sig was not present when Meliaaa was born. Shortly after Melissa's birth Lisa raised the issue that Sig might not be the biologi~al father and acted accordingly. She actively excluded Sig and resumed a relationship with a man named Dill, whom she claimed was the biological father. Sometime in October of that year ( 198()} Lisa met Tim Hartman and began dating him. They began living together in December and actively talked about marrying. llowevar, the relationship ended sutnrnai::-i ly in mid-January, 1989, appaJ~fently because Lisa was advised by her atto:rney that having this relationship was' not in her best interest. Aleo about this time, Michelle Gregg was doing her evaluation for the family Court Services. Dlood tests 0£ Sig na_nsen demonstrated that he was the probable father. Despite this Lisa continued to exclude Sig and frequently showed concern that Sig would somehow harm Melissa, leave the crnintry or App. 65 • PSYCHIATRIC lkSSESSMENT RE: MELISSA ECKSTROM-UANSEN H-26-90 PAGE 9 • in other ways act inappropriately. She made several efforts to bar or limit Sig's time with Melissa, made a variety of allegations about Sig or his family which later proved false. At the recommendation of Michelle Gregg, Sig hired Elizabeth Stanton, MSW, in early 1989 to monitor the transitions of Melissa between Lisa and himself because these transition times had become so frequently scenes of conflict. CHILDHOOD AND FAMILY tlISTORIES Sig Uansen is the oldest of three brothers in an intact family. Doth parents are Norwegian immigrants. They have a stable family with a somewhat ,suthoritarian family style. The £ather bas worked as a commercial fisherman all his adult life as had his father and grandfather before him. Sig was described as a very active preschooler but that when he reached school age he had no difficulties and was well liked by teachers and classmates. Sig admired his father and clearly identified with the life of fishing. ne started accompanying his father during s~~mers when he was 12 and began working as a paid hand at age 14. Since graduating from high achoo! he has worked full time as a commercial fisherman, spendin9 between 7 <1nd 9 months of each year £ishing in Alaskan coastal waters. There is no family history of etm:::,tional, behavioral, or psychiatric problems. Lisa is the 5th of 7 children in an intact, stable family of Swedish heritage. Both parents were born in th~ United States. Lisa's oldest sibling is a sister, 10 years her senior. All of her other siblings are brothers who often catered to her. Iler father often worked overtime so that her mother was in charge of the household. Lisa described he~self as close to her father as well as to her younger brother's, Mike and Rob. She was an a-v-erage student;:.. As an a.dolescent she won a. beauty contest: and entered at least two others. She went to modeling ~chool and worked occasionally as a model. She has also worked as a medical transcriber, managed an apartment complex, and did clerical work in a business office. Lisa~s maternal aunt was apparently sexually abuse by the maternal grandfather prior to divorce when the maternal aunt was 7 years old. There is no other history of sexual abuse in the family or history 0£ behavior, emotional or psychiatric problems. PSYCHIATRIC AND SUDS'l'ANCE AOUSB HISTORIES Sig first began drinking beer with friends at age 17, although he denied it created any problems for him. He stated that since the separation his drinking has subsided significantly but only App. 66 • PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE~ Mf.LIS.SA ECIiated with constipation. The reported vaginal erythema most likely is a result of the recurrent yeast infection that both parents acknowledge Melissa has had. The marks on Melissa's back cannot App. 76 PSYCITIATfUC AssgssMENT RB: MELISSA ECKSTROH-UANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 20 be explained from any of the information available to me through this evaluation. Although it is not clear what caused those marks, there is .no reason to believe that either parent deliberately or unintentionally inflicted them on Melissa. I suspect that they were caused by some natural event during her play at the birthday party at the Eckstrom home. Uowever. this is speculative and not supported by any other information. Melissats statements that her father had touched her genital area and had hurt her are more problematic. Tiowever, her statements here are quite inconsisten~. Uer statements to Linda Dridges were quite graphic and associated with intens~ emotion. Uowever, it is not clear if the emotions represents an actual feeling of having been harmed bv her father or her own internalized conflict about.saying things ~hich she does not believe to be true. In a spontaneous statement to me during her second session, she clearly indicated that her father had not hurt her anal area. This seems to be supported by he~ statements in a video·tape in which she says that her father did not touch her and that her mother h.)d thought these st,":itements "funny''. Despite Melissa• s statements to rne, Linda Dridges, and numerouA other people, that her father has touched her "potty pot", these statement do not seem to be convincing evidence in and of themselves for sexual abUS{:!. '.rhe· assessments of the Hansen's suggest that they are a stabJ e traditional family. The paternal grandmother presents as a secure, experien(:ed care:giv·er and Melissa ap,peil:t'S to have a comfortable, safe relationship with her. This is a relationship that should be Rustained, and their is no convincing reason that it should be disrupted. The evaluaticm of Mr. and Mrs, Ik::,kstrom raises some distm~bing questions. The maternal grandmother is clearly the dominant figure in this family, and maternal grandfather plays a more peripheral role. Mrs. Bckstrom presents as an unhappy, hostile, and guarded person. She seems to be part of a powerful dependant axis, consisting of herself, Lisa, and Melissa. She does not appear to be able to see difficulties in Lisa and is clearly convinced that all of the difficulties that her daughter has had should be blamed on someone else, principally Sig. She was so elosed and hostile that I ~as unable to assess her psychological .,functioning.· Al though she appe~1rs to be an accu.r.~te· h:i.st·t:n.·:lah, one wonders about the degree of disb:>rtion that her own psychology may have in her interpretation of events. Decause of the possibility of skillful concealment, it is always impossible to completmly exclude the po~sibility nf sexual abuse. App. 77 PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MELJ SSA ECf{STROM-Hl\NSBN 11-26-90 PAGE 21 nowever, in this situation it seems extremely unlikely that sexual abuse has actually occurred. A far more likely possibility is that of the so called »parental alienation syndrome• in which the child progressively gets drawn into a powerful exclusive relationship with one parent as a way of meeting that parent's psychological needs, in this case, Lisa. This is a very difficulty pattern to successfully alter. Uowever, it would suggest that the in time with the father be increased. There might be sufficient rationale for alte~ing the primary residential arrangGrnents for Melissa so that she ac~ually lives with · her father or secondarily with the paternal grandparents. Unfortunately, because of the father's occupation, it is unlikely that he could be more consistently available, and actually assume the primary parental role. This also would seem to be a risky alternative because of the subtle difficulties that Sig has in accurately responding to Melissa. The impact of this alternative on Melissa would be highly unpredictable and probably a mixture of both posit~ve and ive effectA, The most seriously d,;tmaging of them might be $Orne lon9 tcrrn impairment in Melissa's capacity to form secure stable attachments. A more conservative approach would be foe mother Lo continue to he the primary caretaker but to maintain the regular time that Melissa has with her patern~l grandmother and to maximize the available time with her father when he is in town. Decausc the possibility t'riat Sig has se:n1a l deviancy ~nd may have sexual abused M0liss.;:1 is so remote, th~re does not seem to be any adequate or ~ompelling reason to have Sig undergo a ,exual deviancy evaluation, f";V-en though :it: would be easy to see how this could be thought of as a pi:ude:nt. recommendation. CONCLUSIONS The predominance of evidence of this evaluatio11 suggests that there was no sexual abuse of Melissa. A more likely explanation of the issues is that she is developing the so called "pa~ental alienation syndrome" in which she is drawn into a progressively more exclusive relationship with her mother to meet her mother's psychological needs. Also there is no evidence that Sig Hansen hHs a sexual deviancy. llowever, he does have narcissistic traits which interfere, in some degree, in his ability to accurately respond to MeJissa. However, in other ways he appears to be a . .co:mp.etent and caring parer-i.t. - He clea:rlT h~H3 had a··signi·f·icant· problem with alcohol which appears to be under control currently. llis difficulty with alcohol at this time seems to be more of a potential problem which could emerge in the future. Lisa has serious pe1:-sonal ;U;y disturbances with prominent nain:issis:tic histrionic, and dependant traits. She meets the diagnostic App. 78 PSYCTIIATRIC ASSESSMENT RB: MELISSA ECRSTROM-ITANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 22 criteria for Uistrionic Personality Disorder. This disorder, like all personality disorders, are extremely difficult to treat, especially ~hen the individual has little insight or no motivation for treatment. Despite her psychological difficulties she is in general a competent, caring and appropriate parent. Ile:r real difficulties in her rehationship vdth Melissa involved a subtle drawing of Melissa into a tight excilusive relationship with her to help meet her own dependant needs. Despite Lisa's powerful psychological difficulties, I doubt that she has deliberately harmed Melissa or actually coached her in making the statements that Melissa has made. TTowever, she has undoubtedly consciously encouraged or suggested these statements. RECOMMENDATIONS 1} There is no reason to re..fe:r Si.g tJansen for sexual deviancy evaluation. 2) The residential arrangeme11te for Mcli8Ba with her father should reb_1r11 to the :Lt· origina 1 unrest.-ic.tcd form, ie. eve17 Tuesday ~1nd Thm-sday ?.Jfternoon :1 nd every oth,~i- weekend. She should continue to spend that tirne v,,,ith her pa te';rna l grandmother if her fath0r is not available. 31 Melissa should continue to reside with her mother as the primary residential parent. 4) Liaa Eckstrom should seek treatment with a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist. The treating psychologist or psychiatrist should be given a copy of this evaluation to help guide in the tre,;itment planning. 5) Melissa should continue in treatmen~ with Linda Oridges, H.s.w., and Linda Dridges should also be given a copy of this evaluation to guide in her treatment of Melissa. Doth L:i.sa and Sig shoold be involved with Ms. Dridges in assisting in the treatment of Melissa in whatever way Ms. n~idges deeme appropriate. 6) Melissa should be enrolled in a preschool in which both pa~ents are allowed to participate. submi I; ted by t JED/tvv App. 79 App. 80 ~ ~·-) ~ Southlake· Professional Grou; ·. ~; Renton Plaza Building John E. Dunne. M.D., F.A. P.A. • Child Psychiatry Wren Hudgins, Ph.D, - Psychology Barnett M. K~plan, M.D. - Psychiatry C:tinical Assodates Pablo R. Proafio, M,D., P.S. • Psychiatry Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D. - Psycl10fogy Barbara Mayers, Ph.D. - Psyclwlogy lee Carlisle, M.D. - Child Psychiatry Barbara Barry, Ph.D. - Psychology January 16, 1991 Joan Green Ferguson, M.s., A.D. Division of Children and Family Services Dept. of Social and Uealth Service& Dox C-97r BJ12 19000 33rd Ave W, N52-2 Lynnwood, WA 98036 RE: Evaluation of Melissa Eckstrom Dear Ms. Ferguson: 1400 Talbot Road South. Suite 203 Renton. WA 98055 {206) 235· 7383 Thank you fol'.' sending me the r-esults of the cuJposcopy examination that was preformed on Aug. 3, 1990. I, indeed, did not .have that available to me at the time that I conducted my evaluation or produced my report on my assessment. I also did not have the results of the serology or multiple cultures that were done on July 9, or July 23. Unfortunatelv, none of this additional information is at all conclusive.·: The erythema of the vulva area, the superficial laceration of the posterior fourchette or muscle laxity of the anus can haov~ multiple explanations and thev are cer-tainlY also consistent w::Cth the conclusions that I d.t:'ew~ in my evalu;tion. This additional, although useful, does not alter my basic asses~ment or conclusion. JED/tvv cc: Pete Francis 1600 Seattle Tower., 1.218.Jrd Ave Seattle, WA 98101-3080 David. Kastle 3500 188th Ave SW Lynn;,,:(:i,.::.id, h'A 9::1046 App. 81 Guardian Ad Lilum Report Eckstrom vs Hansen ~s1 ~ 1-0913 s-3 I February 10, 1992 - .. FEB I I •; ,~ i ,"':, 11 ... \r , ; ,: ; 1 I sur;EEiJH cl)-Ji(T CLi:r~:~: I have prepared this report. as the Court appointed oo~J1hh~~d'.Litum. As the G.AL. my role is to recommend a course of action which I believe will be in the best interest of Melissa. The issue before. the court is whether it is in the best interest of Melissa to resume contact with her father, Sig Hansen, and her paternal grandparents. This necessarily requires resolution of t.vo precursor issues, First; was Jvlclissa the victim of sexual abuse? Secondly, if Melissa was sexually victimized, was Sig Hansen the perpetrator? OPlli'1ON AND RECOM'.tl.mNDATION l can not. determine \Vhether Melissa has been sexually victimized. Assuming she has be.en the victim of sexual abuse, I am of the opinion that Sig Hansen was not the perpetra:or. Based on this opinion 1 am recommending that this court anmv Sig Hansen and his parents to reinstate visitation \\'ith Meliss.a. I have come to this opinion after carefully revie\ving my entire contact ,vith this case (contact whlch has occurred over approximately 20 months), reviewing the professional evalualions, reviewing court documents including depositions, reviewing my numerous contacts 'INith the parties and their attorneys; my phone conversations and interviews, and reviewing other materials which document both the long tem1 family conflicts bet,veen the parties and the allegations of abuse. CHRONOLOGY 05-11-90 to 07-09-90 I received a refom1l from Lisa Eck,,;trom1 s attorney, Stuart Scruff, I was appointed the G.AL. on May 15. 1990. I began work by interviewing Lisa Eckstrom and Siguard Hansen. I also interviewed both paternal grandparents. I ob.served the child, 1'1elissa. Eckslrom, with both parent~. observed an exchange during visitation1 interviewed Elizabeth Stanton, and reviewed accumulated court documents. r also had a number of phone contacts with Lisa and Sig. App. 82 Additionally, I was called upon to mediate several disagreements between Lisa and Sig regarding make up visits and phone contact. 07-09-90 McJissa was seen by Dr. Paufa Lozano in the emergency room at Hatborview Medical Center. Based on Lisa's statements an.d the doctor\s findings, a reforral ivas made to Children's Protective Services. A case worker waB as.signed. 07-10-90 Lisa petitioned a Sr1<.)homish County court for restraining order. Edmonds police involved. The court denied the re.straining order and ordered the matter to be set for a hearing the next day in Kirlg County Family Court. 07~11~90 King County Commissioner Hershey held a hearing. Allegations of sexual abuse were heard. The Commissioner ordered supervised visits with the father and ordered a psychiatric evaluation of both parents and the child. A hearing was scheduled for the 25th tJf Ju1y to hear oral testimony. Prior to the 1-11~90 hearing, I interviewed Dr. Lozano and her supcn:isor, Dr. Gibbons. 07# 13~90 J met with both Children1 s Protective Sen•iccs and l11e Edmonds police department. Near tho end of July or beginning of August the Edmonds police arrested Sig Hansen for the sexual abuse of McHssa. Sig agreed to have no further contact with Melissa until completion of the police investigation. Sig took and passed a polygraph test The paternal grandparents conti@cd to have regular visits with Me.Jissa. During this period, Marilyn Leibert. RN_, was hired by the Hansen's to observe Melissa for signs of possible sexual abuse. Snohmish County declined to prosecute Sig and supervised visit.c; were re-(,umed. 08~07-90 At the request of Sig I observed a visit with Melissa. Later in August, I jutcrviewed Elizabeth Stanton regarding he.r observations during the re.sumed supervised visits, 09~03-90 A heaxing was hdd before King County Commissioner AJHson. The Commissioner ordered Usa to comply \vith the 7 ~ J l ~90-ordcr requiring a psychiatric evaluation. This evaluation was to be done by Dr. Dunn. The Cormnissioner declined to appoint a new GAL. 09-10-90 Dr. Dunn begins his evaluation, 2 App. 83 10-I 8-90 ln the middle of Dr. Dunn's evaluation process and contrary to existing court orders Lisa took Melissa to Linda Bridges fgr therapy. On 10-22 after the third session in four days Ms. Bridges infonns Dr. Dunn of her concerns regarding the sexual abuse of Melissa. On l0-23 she makes a fom1al referral to Children's Protective Services. 10~31-90 A dependency petition is filed in Snohomish County Juvenile Court alleging the sexual abuse of Melissa by Sig. The grandparents are at first offered supervised visits and later these are denied. 11-26-90 3 Dr. Dunn issues his report stat.ing among other things that it is highly unlikely that Sig sexually abused his daughter and that the child's statement~ are a result of Parental Alienation Syndrome. He diagnoses Lisa as Histrionic Personality Disorder and recommends treatment He also recommends the return to unrestricted visitation for the Hansen's. His recommendations are not followed b:y Snohomish county which continues to maintain jur:isdi.ctfon on the case through March 31, 1991, ai. which point they drop the dependency petition. 04-16~91 A. hearing was held before Commissioner Slusher, regarding reinstitution of the Hansen's visitations. Commissioner Slusher ordered a supervised visit with the paternal grandparents in the office of Linda Bridges. He also suggested that a hearing date be set, to hear ora.i testimony, at the earliest possible time. He ordered that there be no cont.act between Melissa and her father, 06-B-91 The paternal grandmother visited wHh Melissa in Ms. Bridges' office. Melissa sat jn Ms. Bridges' lap the entire time. refused to acknowledge the grand:mother, and appeared to fall asleep. No further visits were attempted. 07-03-91 Stuart Greenberg begins a sexual deviance evaluation of Sig. He concludes that it is highly unlikely that Sig is a sexual deviant His evaluation of Sig parallels that of Dr. Dunn's. Both find it unlikely that Sig ,vmdd sexually abuse others, particulady his daughter. Dr. Greenberg believes Sig has more difficulties with alcohol and impulsive outbursts than noted by Dr. Dunn. 01-14-92 Dr. Dunn updated his evaluation. He again concludes that it is highly unlikely App. 84 - - 4 that Sig sexualiy abused ~,:teJissa. He concludes that Parental Alienation Syndrome is the most .likely explanation for Melissa's disclosure. He recommends that Sig he allowed to relinquish his parental righti:;. He reasons that an attempt to reest.ablish parental bonds i.vith MeHssa could cause further devefopmental disturbances for Melissa. SU~fiv!ARY OF CONTACTS 05~11-90 One hour interview Lisa Eckstrom. 05-l 1=90 One hour interview Sig Hansen and patents. 05-18-90 One hour intervie\-v Lisa and Melissa. 05-18-90 One, hour interview Sig Hansen. 05-25-90 One hour interview Elizabeth Stanton. 05-25-90 Two hour rcvie,v of court records. 06-09-90 T\vo hour inlervfow Sig Hansen, Melissa and paternal grnndparenfs. 06-09-90 through 7-5-90 One hour of accumulated phone contacts Lisa and Sig. 07-11-90 Six hours Interview at Harborview Hospital and Family Court hearing. 07-12-90 Phone contacts 1,vith Children's Protective Services, Detective Jones, and Alden Garret, one hour. 07-13-90 Three hours meeting with Children's Protective Services and Edmonds Police Dcpaitmcnt 08~07-90 One and one, half hours interview with Melissa and paternal grandparents. 08-15-90 One half hour meeting with Eli7,,.aheth Stanton. 09-03~90 Four hour Family Court hearing, 10-31-90 Four hour Juvenile Court hearing. 11-07-90 One hour intotview Dr. John Dunn. 04-08-9 I One hour observation of interview with Linda Bridges and Melissa. 04-08-91 One hour interview with Lisa Eckstrom. 04-11-91 One, hour interview with Unda Bridges. 04-12-91 One hour interview with matema.l grandmot11er. 04-12-91 One hour inte:rvie\v \Vith. paternal grandparents. 04-12~91 One hour interview With Sig Hansen. 04-16-91 Four hour Family Court hearing. 06-13¼9 I. One hour observation of' visit at Linda Bridges' office between 111atcmal g;andmothcr and Melissa App. 85 01-22-92 One hour interview with Dr. Greenberg regarding results of sexual deviancy evaluation. 0l-23w92 One half hour interview witlt Lisa. Her attorney Peter Frances was present 01-25-92 One hour interview with Linda Bridges. 02-04-92 One hour interview witl'i Ken Hutchenson, Lisa's cmmselor 02wl0~92 One hour interview with Sig. In addition to face to face interviews a number of phone contacts \Vere made during the course of this case, J have also reviewed a large number of court docmnenis as well as written material obtained from the attomeys representing both parties. The above briefly deSctibes my involvement \vith this case. One earlier event., documented in the court mes, is also worthy of note. This event occurred in January of 1989. ln l 989, the original court evaluator commented on the apparent lack of suppmi Lisa or her mother vvould lend to the task of Melissa forming a relationship with her father. This evaluator recommended that both patties submit to a family psychiatric evaluation and that both parti.es participate in counseling. Neither of these recommendations \Vere followed. DISCUSSION I originally spoke with Mr. Scarff who relayed infomrntion regarding an allegation that Melissa had been sexually abused by Sig. Base.cl on this, I intervfowed Sig, Lisa and Sig's parents. My clinical impressions at that time did not lead me to conclude that sexual abuse had occumed. I also spoke ·with Elizabeth Stanton who, after making independent observations, concurred \Vith me. Later, I became aware of the polygraph te...;,;t result and three separate evaluations of Sig, au of which supported my and Ms. Stanton's observations. 5 I later received information regarding the physical findings of Dr. Lozano. Although the medical findings were inconclusive, I found them very disturbing. l began to investigate my concerns and spoke with both the examining doctor and her supervisor. The examining doctor made a report to CPS. I later spoke with CPS regarding the medical findings. The evidence I found whic.h supported the notion of Mr. Hansen as the perpetrator were statements made by Lisa regarding Melissa's disclosures and a history of previous physical and sexual abuse given to the emergency room doctor by Lisa. App. 86 Although Lisa's statements concerned me I viewed them in the context of previous allegations made to the original court evaluator which were unsubstantiated. On March 28, 1990, Lisa made a referral to CPS which generated both a CPS and Edmonds police investigation. During these investigations Lisa stated that Melissa was fearful and showing regressive behavior. None of this information was given to me during my initial investigation. This infonnation , and the infonnation now compiled before this court makes this a difficult care. If the court were to find that Sig sexually abused his daughter, resuming visitation would be unthinkable. However, after my involvement with this case, I find the Parental Alienation Syndrome diagnosis offered by Dr. Dunn, as the most credible explanation for the conflicting opinions in this case. The early court documents support such a notion. Clearly, Lisa has never encouraged visitation \'i.,ith the Hanscns, She has consistenUy sought to limit, restrict, and control l'vfelissa's access to the Hansens. This started as early as Lisa's attempt,:; to prove that Sig was not Melissa's b1ological father. According to Dr. Dunn's view Melissa was subconsciously drnwn into a tight, exclusive relationship viriU1 her mother and maternal grandmother and began to identify with their 6 anger and fear of the Hansen family. The behavior of though not fully explained, is of the type known and documented in other family law cases, The difficulties in this case are not easily resolved because the professional opinions are so obviously polarized. The responses from the various professionals who have sought to investigate, evaluate; treat and protect 1-felissa from a nmnber of real or .imagined dangers is difficult to understand. Certainly the allegation of sexual abuse provokes a strong emotional response. One expects this in parents, relatives, and family friends of the alleged victim. One hopes, however, that the professionals charged with investigating and evaluating such allegations will bring to the problem the objectivity needed in decision making. I hclievc the polarization has occurred because those professionals who believe that Sig is the perpetrator of Melissa's possible sexual abuse have consciously chosen to disregard information which does not confom.1 to one or the others preconceived notions. Those ,vho believe Sig to be the perpetrator have never interviewed him, nor have they observed the interaction between Sig and Melissa. They have never sought the observations of myself or Elizabeth Stanton, and most importantly, have virtually ignored the long history of family court involvement in this matter. App. 87 7 An example of this occurred withln CPS. When I originally spoke with the CPS supervisor she stated that their job was to protect children, not to investigate. Later Diane Chesterfield stated that she chose to disregard the family court history and focus only on Melissa's stalements and the physical evidence. She also chose to ignore Dr. Dunn's evaluation, Sig's polygraph test, and the observations of Elizabeth Stanton. Though she was aware of this information she did not interview Sig. She did not observe Melissa with Sig, nor did she observe MeHssa with her paternal gr,mdparcnts before .filing the dependency petition, which was later djsmissed. According to Ms . .Bridges the Lynnwood office of Children's Protective Services did a good job of protecting Melissa for six months, Ms. Bridges has also ignored the family court history, Dr. Dunn's report, and others who have observed Melissa's behavior v,dth the Hanscns. Over the last year she has treated Melissa for the effects of trauma associated with sexual abuse even though the court appointed evaluator has clearly stated that such an event probably never occurred. Her assessment was not based on a thorough eval:uation of all of the relevant information. It was based on her clinical judgement of a two and one half year o1d child1 s heha,vior in her office. I find Ms. Bridges' assessment methodology puzzHng. Her statements to CPS and their subsequent zeal in protecting this child from her fatl1er has compounded Melissa's alienation from her father, which may be imeparable. In spite of Dr. Dunn ts evaluation, .Mr. Hansen indicated a ,villingncss to participate in a Sexual Deviance evaluation as early as March, l 99L Yet the evaluation did not take place until July. At the court hearing in April, 199.1, it was suggested that oral testimony be given immediately, yet it has t.aken until Fcbruary,1992 for this to be scheduled, a full eight months later. Some defay is understandable, but. this lengthy delay has compounded the clinically documented alienation of l\·1elissa from the Han sens. The conrt delays, the over zealous behavior of ChHdren's Protective Services, and the ,vell meaning but iU advised clinical assessment and treatment of Melissa have an actively supported lhe original impulse of the Eckstrom family lo alienate Melissa from the Hanscns. Dr. Dunn has suggested llial whatever relationship Mei.issa had ·with the Haoscns no longer exists. He is concerned that the trauma associated with a reestablishing their relationship may not be worth the risks involved. I strongly suspect Ms. Bridges agrees witi1 this asse..;,sment It is difficult to disagree with Dr. Dunn1s view for the short term. Howevcr1 more is at stake than Mefo:;sa;s short term, development In App. 88 fact, the long term effect of Melissa having no contact with the Hansen's may be severe indeed. Recent literature on adoption suggests that an adopted child's need to know about his or her birth parents is critical to later developmental tasks. Professi.onals in this field have responded by promoting Life Books about birth parents and supported the chiJd's need to know about their birth parents. The recent trend to,vard open adoptions is also an example of this change. Questions refated to "who am l? Where did I come from? and who are my relatives?'' are all important as one approaches the developmental task of identity formation. One must assume that Melissa, like other children, \ViU one day ask these questions. If there is no further contact between Melissa and Mr. Hansen the answers to these questions will be given from the perspective of Lisa and her family. Given Dr. Dunn's diagnosis Qf the mother and description of the dependent triad consisting of Li.sa, Meli~.;;a, and the maternal grandmother, difficult issues related to separation and individuation may arise for Melissa. She is already described as fearful nf men and as isolated in her play at day care. One nrnst aEk what difficulties this child might likely experience and how these problems \vm be understood. Lisa dearly does not take responsibility for the difficulties she creates. She consistently describes herself as a victin1 of events, compelled to do things because those in authority tcU her it must be done. This inability to accept responsibility, coupled \Vith a sanctioned myth of sexual abuse, may combine to reinforce the notion that normal developmental. conflicts associated with identity formation may be seen and treated as a symptom of prior sexual abuse. It is clear that Sig has many difficulties of his own. It is also clear that at one point Sig and his parents had a healthy relationship with Melissa. This relationship may have effectively hecn destroyed by the combination of events that make up this very difficult case. If the cou1i believes that the sexual abuse of Melissa by her father was unlikely burthen refuses contact I believe the court will inevitably compound Melissa's problems by reinforcing a myth tl1,at wm foUow Melissa into her aduU life. It will reinforce the notion that the Hansens ,vere evil and dangerous people who refused to protect her, and that her father not only did not love her but was a very bad and sick man who horribly abused App. 89 her. It would also reinforce the image of Melissa as a victim and, given her mother as her only model, may perpetuate the generational damage that has already occurred in Lisa Eckstrom. The dangers inherent in no further contact are at least as real M the probable trauma associated ,vith attempts at reunification of Melissa with the Hansens. CONCLUSION 9 1 do not believe that Sig sexually abused J:vielissa. There are risks associated with the reinstitution of visitation. However, the risb inherent in no further contact are at least a.s great. The inconclusive physical findings are disturbing. I do not rnle out that something happened to Melissa, only that it is tmHkly that. Sig is the perpetrator. \Vith this in mind I recornmend the following: L That visitation be reinstated. 2. That a female GAL be appointed who's task it would be to establish a relationship, first. with Melissa (Ms, Bridges May be helpful in this process), and later wii.h both Lisa and Sig. The GAL \vould initially supervise the visits with 1Mclis.sa and the Hans.ens, providing all transportation in the beginning. 3. That Lisa remain in counseling on a regular ba.~is and that Sig begin treatment with a certified therapist to work on his anger and alcohol related difficulties. The therapist should also help him to understand the trauma Melissa rnay experience during the nmnification process. Victor Larson M.S.W. App. 90 ' # List of Exhibit,. f 1.1 se No. s 7 ... 3 .. o 9135 - 3 FI l E K!NG C.OUNTr WA.SH!i'{GTQN MAR 191992 SUPERIOR oom=rr CLERK SY UJJRIE KENDfo.LL OE?UTV fil ti , t~: .. ~ Dept. No. ___ g:____ Page-· ~1 of k :rn Rt 71?.e marria'?- of: @d _.Lis& l>awa lian.-.s£. .......... ti ____ ll S(jwd J_ 11@_,,,s;-4'.e::....,,,~"'---__ No. 7r ..0,. 1 2 3 15 IV /R Date Re-0 & A MARO 3 1992 MARO 3 1992 I I MARO 3 1992 MARO 4 1992 MARO 4 t992 /16 t,,__-~-r--t--"-~~-~-..:::z.---~-f----!--1r-m[l!.!-!::._::_..::.===--4-___ ---lf---f-......J..---UJ_~ 7~~--U~ULl¥m.1l2QU'4!J~tll.l)J.~.'---'-t-~M_AR_0_5 _19_92--+---~--.ff------h-.J_., .... ,lL- ·~ l 1 1Q8 ~C-bp~ r(f?«t cf -+"-Lf--M_AR_· _0_5_i9 __ 92-¼-~---l4---J.-...l~- .\,,-/_19--...J-.~~41:·~J ~-~~~~~A. MAR O 5 1992 7r = Plaintiff!Petitioner AIR =::: Admitted/Refused .a. = Defendant/ Respondent t~s~ Re~O & A = Re~ottered & Admitted ID = For ldentifrcation Only W ~-- Withdrawn (Returned to Counsel or Retained by the Court) App. 91 No. ?l) '1ZL \ Jii l i2z_ [23 .. (2.t/ r----· J 15 .. . 1r X - ---, )( . A ~ ~ X rx "· List of ExhibitCause No. 8 7 .. 3 .. O 9 13 5 • 3 ., SUPt:t:'J:,R 00/JRT Cl.ERK BY LAURIE KENDALL Dept. No. 'o / Page 2... . of LL ____ _ DEPUTY \...\~A OAWti i:lAtJ~ g. 61eu.eo (f. ttANilal. I Description ¾ Date Re•O & A 10 F\}RJ~;~~lw ~ .... '\~.,\~~~~~ A MARO 5 1992 jif1 ¥ . . ( · ta,+/~ of ~.,;I A MARO 5 1992 111_ful~ ~ d Childt.A/t&MIM {Jo~#~~ ~et 4 MAR 1 8 1992 et>pies n~ms an ?tU!ln.fs ·- fl_ MAR 1 8 1992 I Ip,;: m/<.:.sjL 1/anSUI.. ;;...,..,.,;.w,,_,..,,,~ ~ /Jlh-,-/t5S_W~J{!Jig._$~s If MAR 1 8 1992 I ·-'- ,-··· l"l"D J IJI ihfNitt!W ~<'/JI AJdt'rrn r I I~ MAR 1 8 1992 " '✓ l ., ,, ! . __ l_ ~- App. 92 1-lK, _s_o_u_th_l_a_ke_P_r_o_fe_s_s_i_o_n_a_l_G_r_o_u_p _______ Pu~~ES=============R=e=n=to=n=P=l=a_z_a=_B~u_i=ld=in=g 1fEP•tCT John E. Dunne, M.D., F.A.P.A. - Child Psychiatry Wren Hudgins, Ph.D. - Psychology Barnett M. Kaplan, M.D. - Psychiatry Clinical Associates Pablo R. Proano, M.D., P.S. - Psychiatry Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D. - Psychology Barbara Mayers, Ph.D. - Psychology Barbara Barry, Ph.D. - Psychology Sherry Hanan, Ph.D. • Psychology 1400 Talbot Road South. Suite 203 Renton, WA 98055 (206) 235-7383 SUPPLEMENTAL PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR MELISSA ECKSTROM-HANSEN JANUARY 14, 1992 Mother: Lisa Dawn Eckstrom, age 26 7503 228th Avenue SW Edmonds, WA 98020 774-6409 Attorney for Mother: Peter D. Francis 1600 Seattle Tower 1218 3rd Avenue Seattle, WA 98103-3080 682-9910 Dependent Child: Melissa Dawn Eckstrom-llansen Age: 3 years, 9 months DOD: 04/22/88 Father: Sigurd Johnny nansen, age 25 17107 76th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98020 745-2065 Attorney's for Father: David J. Ordell 705 2nd Avenue, Suite 401 Iloge Duilding Seattle, WA 98104 624-0130 David I