Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Honduras A Year After Obama Assisted Attempted Takeover

Just a little over a year ago (see previous PPRs) I returned from a humanitarian effort in Honduras. Joined by Rep. Dan Roach and grandson, Ethan, I led Washington based VOSH to my project site. (Volunteer Optometrists Serving Humanity)

Dr. Chris Barry of Bellevue was the VOSH leader. His team provided much needed eye ware and screened patients for cataracts which are common in people much younger than we see them here in the states.

One week after our return there was a hurricane in the area. Two weeks after that there was an attempted takeover of the government by then president Mel Zalaya which was being aided by his buddy, Marxist Hugo Chavez. The Chavez effort was aided by the Obama administration. This was a stunning revelation of the Obama's Marxist leanings.

I wrote perhaps the first article published in a major U.S. newspaper, The Seattle Times,...sounding the trumpet for the peaceful defense of democracy in Honduras. That op-ed was circulated through the Internet in Honduras and helped spur discussion here in the United States.

The following is an update written by my Internet friend, Bill. I look forward to meeting him when the election cycle is over.

"We've lived a year now without Mel...at least without his manipulating the State under his overbearing, direct, and very corrupt control.

No, things in Honduras are still far from perfect. Our continuing, and paternalistically inclined government remains broke. Taxes and bureaucratic salaries are still rising sharply. Regulations abound, and don't seem to be abating. Teachers continue to be on strike more often than not. That has been the norm since we moved here, 15 years ago.

But at least the worst abuses seem to have ended. Millions in cash are not being withdrawn from the Central Bank to be distributed by select politicians for dubious purposes. We have so far foregone a Socialist overthrow of the government. So, things really are better today in Honduras than I'd have imagined they'd be a year ago. That's when the Zelaya plan to turn Honduras into a Chavistic paradise was thwarted, at least for the moment, by appropriate action taken by the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras.

Oh, anyone with a smattering of interest in Honduras knows that there are many activists who demonstrated and wrote about the "wrongs" of the transitional government, headed by Roberto Micheletti. The ALBA nations (aligned to Cuba and Venezuela) still insist that our current government is illegitimate too, because the free elections held here were conducted by an "illegitimate" government. I don't suppose those interests will ever be placated, no matter how much the ever conciliatory Pepe Lobo (current President of Honduras) defers to them.

Time to put the past behind us. Diminish crime. Create a climate attractive for investment, domestic and foreign.

I've been proud to live in Honduras, ever since we moved here. Things are handled well, especially when the chips are down, like they were after Hurricane Mitch. When the going gets really tough, Hondurans do what has to be done. Trouble is, then they relax. And then they want the government to resolve all problems, just like they've been taught they should do in the public school systems.

Trouble is, the "more government" solution never works...anywhere! (Right on, Bill! PR)Anyway, we're still here. We're still more or less free. Honduras continues to have a real shot at success, if she can muster a little confidence and the wisdom to be a little more laissez faire in policy.

I kind of wish other nations, like the United States and Spain would be more tolerant. Of course, I think we all need to be tolerant, and work together! After all, there's no perfect model. And we're all on the same boat!

We did the right thing a year ago. Thank God we didn't get sold the Chavez model.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Ferry System Smells Fishy

KING 5 investigative reporter Susannah Frame did an expose on money leaking from the ferry system.

Among facts presented to the governor this week was that millions were spent in "at will" overtime. The governor defended her appointed administrators.

But get this one.... employees are being paid to commute to work. Some have been compensated for commute trips, each work day, for over 30 years! I guess they were never given a time certain for when they needed to move closer to work.

Meanwhile, at another state agency.....

WA State Patrol: "Hello? Hello? This is the State Patrol calling the Department of Transportation..."


WA State Patrol: "Hey...DOT...You guys there?"


Hearing no answer the trooper making the call turns to the com operator. "Well, I guess John hasn't gotten to the ferry terminal yet. He gets paid to commute from Fircrest to Anacortes...takes a run out to the islands a couple times a week. He's making a second salary with the transportation reimbursement. What a gig that is."

Linda the com operator: "10-4 352. I will make the report." "So...what's that Benson? You say John gets paid to commute?"

Trooper: "Yeah. It's a perk. Ya gotta be in ferries to get it. John lives in Fircrest where his wife teaches. He's had a paid commute to Anacortes for 30 years!"

Linda: "Wow. Say, isn't your wife a teacher in Vancouver? What is she going to do now that you made sergeant here in Tacoma?"

Troop: "It's tough. With the kids still at home...I have an apartment that I pay to keep while she is trying to move to a new school district and everyone can move up here. Hope the house sells in this economy. Like almost everyone here when they take a promotion...I commute home for the weekend. I think I have found a place for us to live. The patrol paid for the first month...but I'm on my own now. Takes all my promotion pay really." Then turning to the phone....

WA State Patrol: "Hello, John?" "Yeah, good to hear you too." "....you don't say...well, I'll tell your sister when I see her this weekend... Take care... Yeah, bye."

Linda: "You OK? What's up?"

Troop: "Oh nothing...just that John couldn't talk. He is in an inter county carpool to Anacortes. His trip doesn't really cost him a thing."

Pam Roach Leads Efforts To Save Rainier School From Closure...

Senator Pam Roach has formed an ad hoc committee for Rainier School and Respite Care

It's tough to run a reelection campaign and work other issues as well. I have done it before. One year I chaired a sussessful campaign to stop a hospital annexation. During another campaign I went to Honduras for my efforts there. :o) Ya do what ya gotta do.

Every year Rainier School for the developmentally disabled is targeted for closure and the 2011 session will be no exception. The only way to protect this asset is to advance a broadened agenda for the facility and publicize its value.
We must influence public opinion. Legislators who live out of our area need to have reasons to protect Rainier School. To this end, I created an Ad Hoc Committee* to promote Rainier School. We need to build a structured and pro- active approach to save Rainier School.

Closing Rainier School should not be an option. Rainier School is the keystone of Washington State residential habilitation centers. It is home to the most vulnerable in our communities. It constitutes 1/3 of the local Buckley economy and is staffed by kind, dedicated and professional people.

Our vision includes expanding the role of Rainier School to provide such services as respite care for in-home family caregivers; creating a research/learning facility in partner- ship with teaching programs at Green River Community College; re-opening closed facilities, like the bowling alley and the swimming pool to include public use. The pool, by the way, was not paid for by the taxpayers but by Friends of Rainier through donations.

This is just a snapshot of a new vision that is shared by many. I invite you to read the white paper, “A New Vision for Rainier School,” on my Senate web page or call the office for a copy.

We need to enhance the public’s appreciation for this community icon. (Note: this page was written by me. It appears in other places but is my authorship.)

* Members of the Ad Hoc Committee are: Pam Roach, Chair; Rep. Dan Roach; Rep. Chris Hurst; Buckley Mayor Pat Johnson; Enumclaw Mayor Liz Reynolds; Pierce County Councilman Shawn Bunney; Tom Dean and Bob Gee (Friends of Rainier); Carole Dottlich; Sue Hendrickson and Matt Zuvick (Washington Federation of State Employees); Judelle Sonneson (Service Employees International Union); and the Enumclaw and Buckley Chambers of Commerce.

Live Radio Talk On CPS Abuse Every Sunday Night

(This national radio program provides a forum for abuses of power and unrestrained wrongdoings of CPS. I thought you might be interested.)

There are two hosts:

Jane of Abuse Freedom United can be contacted at: http:www.abusefreedom.com

The second host is "T. K." who can be contacted at: www.OfficalDCRallyfest.com

"ABUSE FREEDOM LIVE" (The radio call-in show):

JUNE 27, 2010 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time Zone

Friday, June 25, 2010

Who Is This Crazy Guy?

Hint: He will be at the BBQ on July 24 from 1 to 3 PM here at the farm!
Call 253-735-4210 and let us know you will be here!!

Pam Roach Endorsements In 2010 Reelection Bid

I am honored to have been endorsed for reelection to the State Senate by:

Doug and Anne Marie Stuth

Attorney General Rob McKenna

Congressman Dave Reichert

Mayor Pete Lewis, Auburn

John Partridge, Auburn City Councilmember

Rich Wagner, Auburn City Councilmember

Mayor Liz Reynolds, Enumclaw

Mayor Neil Johnson, Bonney Lake

Mayor Dave Enslow, Sumner

Mike Chris Van Hoof, Enumclaw School Board

Mike Ennis, Enumclaw City Councilmember

Leroy Goff, Sumner City Councilmember

Chief Alan Predmore, Buckley Fire Department

Chief Eric Robertson, Valley Regional Fire Authority

Valley Professional Fire Fighters (Auburn, Algona, Pacific)

King County Police Officer's Guild

King County Corrections Officers

Washington Federation of State Employees

Master Builders of Pierce County

Pierce County Affordable Housing Council

King County Councilmember Pete von Reichbauer

King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn

Donna O’ Ravez, Edgewood City Councilmember

Steve Cope, Edgewood City Councilmember

Dan Decker, Bonney Lake City Councilmember

Mark Hamilton, Bonney Lake City Councilmember

Painter and Allied Trades Union

Karen Leming….South Prairie community volunteer

Jeff Hogan, Mayor of Edgewood

Bonney Lake Councilmember Randy McKibbin

Bonney Lake Councilmember Dan Swatman

Seattle-King County Realtors

SEIU Local 925

State Patrol Lieutenants Association (representing lieutenants and captains)

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 483

WA State Veterinary Association

WA Restaurant Association

Neil Rassmussen, Sumner community leader

Tim Edward's Law Firm

(many others coming soon....)

Thank you friends!

Monday, June 21, 2010

"In Re A.B....... Simplified

I asked Human Services and Corrections staff coordinator, Jennifer Strus, to give a quick interpretation on the results of our win in A.B.S. (Note: If I asked myself for the email train through public disclosure...I would turn this over to myself and publish it.)

".... Since you seem pretty familiar with the facts of the case, I won’t go into them at this point other than to say that the parental rights of the father were terminated by the trial court without an explicit finding that the father was currently an unfit parent. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and said that a parent has a “constitutional due process right not to have his or her relationship with a natural child terminated in the absence of a trial court finding of fact that he or she is currently unfit to parent the child.” The court also said that “when an appellate court is faced with a record that omits an explicit finding of current parental unfitness, the appellate court can imply or infer the omitted finding if – but only if – all the facts and circumstances in the record clearly demonstrate that the omitted finding was actually intended, and thus made, by the trial court.”

I went back and looked at our TPR (Termination of Parental Rights...PR) statute because I had always thought it required an explicit finding of unfitness but indeed it does not. It requires things like “there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be returned to his or her parent,” but it does not require an explicit finding of current unfitness....

I then asked if our court was "making law" by doing this. Her response was:

"They have interpreted the law we wrote in a way that comports with what the US Supreme Court requires in termination cases."

Starved Girl And Brother Should Get The $40 Million

I posted months ago the extreme neglect on the part of CPS to not have helped a girl who reached out to the "system" as she was being abused. (Please see previous report.)

The teen who weighted 47 pounds when she was found, and her brother, are wanting $40 million from the state. After the lawyers get about $15 million and the remainder is split between the two youths...that is a pittance. The girl had permanent damage done to her physical development...not counting the loss of teeth, etc.

Imagine...sleeping like a dog at the foot of your "parents" bed so you could not get food during the night. Imagine sipping condensation off a window to get water...and then having the straw taken away. She endured a prison camp.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Obama Cedes Part Of Arizona To Mexico

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qv_zjGTs9E Please cut and paste if this link doesn't work.

This was sent to me by a friend who used the above title. It seemed accurate. Obama did everything in his power to turn Honduras over to Chavez, and so far has failed.... It was a heck of a lot easier to turn over Arizona!

And a reader writes.....
Dear Senator:
I respect the work you helping families and fighting corruption in the DCS/CPS office in WA.
However, there is enough sensationalism from both political parties in this country.
Why do you post this nonsense? In order for any United States land to be ceded to another country, an act of Congress would have to be passed. You can do better than this.


Eileen..I understand the word "cede." I have a degree in history. Most often a country loses a war and land along with it. I thought I stated clearly enough that this was the heading of the person who sent the story. I have now bolded that fact.

I write about this...and Honduras...because it is important to the United States of America and the freedoms I love. That is what this blogs is all about...Freedoms and those efforts that would take it away.

Reading Tree Provides Books To Kids

Nothing helps promote reading better than having parents read to their kids and having kides see their parents reading. People do learn by example.

Helping in a big way, however, is "Reading Tree," a non-profit associated with Thrift Recycling of Tacoma. I have been a board member for several years.

Used books are brought in by semi-trucks from all over the country. The books are sorted by condition and category. Depending on the condition they are recycled, shipped as donations to foriegn countries that know or are learning English, or given to schools here in our country.

I had fun when Reading Tree visited Wickersham Elementary in Buckley. Hundreds of books made it to the shelves of the White River School District in my 31st District.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Bonney Lake-Sumner Courier-Herald Report Upcoming B-B-Q

Pam Roach to host barbecue on July 24
Bonney Lake-Sumner Courier-Herald Reporter
Jun 14 2010, 2:40 PM

State Sen. Pam Roach, R-31st, officially filed for re-election July 7 and has scheduled a barbecue and campaign rally for next month.

In a press release, Roach touted her 100 percent rating form the Association of Washington Builders as well as endorsements from the Pierce County Master Builders, the King County Association of Realtors, state veterinarians and local leaders, including Bonney Lake Mayor Neil Johnson.

She has also been endorsed by the Washington Federation of State Employees, the King County Police Officers Guild, the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association and Valley Professional Firefighters.

“The economy is the most pressing issue facing our state right now,” Roach said in a press release. “We need to make it easier for businesses to prosper and stay in business. There is a ‘job drain’ when companies leave the state or are threatened with closure.”

Roach also cited her work to help save Lake Tapps, keep sex predators from being housed in residential Auburn and her efforts to save Rainier School in Buckley from closure.

The campaign rally and barbecue is scheduled for 1 to 3 p.m. July 24 at the Roach family farm on Green Valley Road near Flaming Geyser Park. Confrimed attendees for the event including Attorney General Rob McKenna, U.S. Senate candidate Dino Rossi, Pierce County Councilmember Shawn Bunney, political activist Tim Eyman and members of the King County Council.

The public may obtain tickets to the event by contacting pamroach@comcast.net.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Obama Backed Zelaya Wants War To Win Back Power

The following is part of an email that was just sent from the area in Honduras where I help with schools and clinics. I am sending it because I want readers to get a glimpse of what is going on down there:

My friend writes: "We are constantly reminded that we are in a third world country. Though we finished the improvements to the clinic and Mike ---- is here to help train and set up the Malaria Control Center, there has been no water to the clinic because a Boa was stuck in the tubes and the microscope with supplies is stuck in customs because there is a “resistance group” sneaking in arms to build an army to bring back the ousted president Mel Zelaya, to power. Meanwhile Jose and ----- have been asked by the Mayor of ------- to build a road and a city dump with our bulldozer free of charge. These kind of things never seem to happen in the United States."

Sunday, June 13, 2010

A Moment To Just Stare....

Five years old and a world traveler...a big sister...a dancer...a reader...a child of God who is counting on her parents and loved ones to teach her right from wrong and to nurture her out of childhood.

It is me that is staring. There is something so wonderful in contemplating the future for someone you love. I pray she has freedom. That is what I want most for her...to live in a free country. To do so gives her the greatest chance to enjoy all of the other blessings of life. I love you Sadie.


I just opened an Auburn legislative district office. Faced with having to learn another new phone number I at first struggled with the fact it was such a "non sexy" number...4918. I mean why didn't I get something like 2400...or 0007?

Then I saw how easy it was! There are 49 State Senators...and only 18 are Republican.

Chocolate Chip Cookies

Misplaced Twitter:
"Making Chocolate Chip cookies and using esencia de vainilla de optima calidad. Bought several 16 oz. bottles of this vanilla in Honduras at under $1 dollar each. What did you pay for yours? :o)"

A.B.S. Reader Comment...Alienation Of Affection

Due to campaigning I have limited time to blog and will bring more reader comments forward. I remember the case of Paul Sanders who over 30 years ago sued the state and won. His daughter had not been happy because Paul would not allow her to date until she was 16 years-old. So, the girl went to a school counselor who suggested she did not have to live with an oppressive father and she could, if she wanted to, be in a foster home. So, the girl admitted herself to foster care. A young lawyer, Richard Sanders, argued that case! I knew Paul. He was director of Citizens Taxpayers Association. His was, literally, a textbook case. It was written in text books (apparently one that is rarely used :o).

From a Dear Reader:

From the concurring opinion: “The trial court also erred by failing to consider facts in the record that suggest the adoptive parent T.L. may have contributed to the child’s inability to bond.”

This sounds like a clear indication of parent alienation…

Is this how DSHS steals children... interfere with the real parents visits and support the foster parent?

Saturday, June 12, 2010

A.B. Question Answered

In the case of A.b. the State Supreme court ordered an expedited return. There is a strong possibility that there will be an appeal. But, the same members on the court will hear this.

The new Justice from Spokane was the one who took the child in the first place. Because of that she was not allowed to sit on this case.

There is more I could say but there are a lot of doors to knock!

There is a lot going on...

Thursday, June 10, 2010

The Case Of A.B, (Please see last blog for short version)

Supreme Court of the State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number: 80759-1
Title of Case: In re Welfare of A.B.
File Date: 06/10/2010
Oral Argument Date: 06/24/2008

Appeal from Yakima County Superior Court
Honorable Michael E Schwab

Barbara A. Madsen Concurrence Author
Charles W. Johnson Signed Concurrence
Gerry L. Alexander Signed Dissent
Richard B. Sanders Signed Majority
Tom Chambers Dissent Author
Susan Owens Signed Majority
Mary E. Fairhurst Signed Majority
James M. Johnson Signed Majority
Debra L. Stephens Did Not Participate
J Dean Morgan,
Justice Pro Tem. Majority Author


Counsel for Petitioner(s)
Susan F Wilk
Washington Appellate Project
1511 3rd Ave Ste 701
Seattle, WA, 98101-3635

David L. Donnan
Washington Appellate Project
1511 3rd Ave Ste 701
Seattle, WA, 98101-3635

Counsel for Respondent(s)
Sheila Malloy Huber
Attorney at Law
Po Box 40124
Olympia, WA, 98504-0124

Michael James Shinn
Office of The Atty General
1220 Main St Ste 510
Vancouver, WA, 98660-2964

Miriam Rosenbaum
Attorney General of Washington
1220 Main St Ste 510
Vancouver, WA, 98660-2964

Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Defender Association
Linda Lillevik
Carey & Lillevik PLLC
1809 7th Ave Ste 1609
Seattle, WA, 98101-1313


In the Matter of the Welfare of A.B., )
a minor child. )
Appellant, ) No. 80759-1
v. ) En Banc
Respondent. ) Filed June 10, 2010
______________________________ )

MORGAN, J.* -- The trial court granted the State's petition to terminate the
parent-child relationship between Rogelio Salas and his daughter, A.B. The Court
of Appeals affirmed by unpublished opinion. In re Welfare of A.B., 140 Wn. App.
1024 (2007). We granted Salas' motion for discretionary review. In re Welfare of
A.B., 164 Wn.2d 1001 (2008). Salas now argues (1) that he has a due process right
not to have his relationship with his natural child terminated unless the trial court
first finds that he, at the time of trial, is currently unfit to be a parent, (2) that the

*Judge J. Dean Morgan is serving as a justice pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to
Washington Constitution article IV, section 2(a).

In re the Welfare of A.B., No. 80759-1

trial court in his case did not make such a finding, and thus (3) that the trial court's
order terminating his relationship with his daughter violated his right to due process.
The State responds to the second of these propositions by asking us to imply such a
finding if none was expressed and by claiming that the record in this case contains
evidence sufficient to support the trial court's findings. In addition, Salas argues
that the trial court misapplied the six termination factors of RCW 13.34.180(1) by
mixing considerations involving A.B.'s best interests and considerations involving
his parental rights. Holding that Salas is correct on both scores and rejecting the
State's responses, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent
By virtue of RCW 13.34.180(1) and RCW 13.34.190, a Washington court
uses a two-step process when deciding whether to terminate the right of a parent to
relate to his or her natural child. The first step focuses on the adequacy of the
parents1 and must be proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.2 The
second step focuses on the child's best interests3 and need be proved by only a
preponderance of the evidence.4 Only if the first step is satisfied may the court
reach the second.5


In re the Welfare of A.B., No. 80759-1

According to RCW 13.34.180(1), the first step involves six termination
factors, each of which must be proved clearly, cogently, and convincingly. They are
(a) That the child has been found to be a dependent child;
(b) That the court has entered a dispositional order pursuant to
RCW 13.34.130;
(c) That the child has been removed or will, at the time of the
hearing, have been removed from the custody of the parent for a period of at
least six months pursuant to a finding of dependency;
(d) That the services ordered under RCW 13.34.136 have been
expressly and understandably offered or provided and all necessary services,
reasonably available, capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within
the foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered or
(e) That there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so
that the child can be returned to the parent in the future . . . . ; [and]
(f) That the continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly
diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a stable and
permanent home.
RCW 13.34.180(1). According to RCW 13.34.190, the second step is for the court
to ascertain the best interests of the child. Because the parent's rights will already
have been observed in the first step, this second step need be proved by only a
preponderance of the evidence.
With this statutory scheme in mind, we turn to the facts here. On October 27,
2001, A.B. was born at a hospital in Yakima, Washington. The hospital quickly
discovered that A.B. had cocaine in her system, deduced that her mother, J.B., had
been abusing that drug, and notified the Washington State Department of Social and
Health Services (DSHS).
On October 29, 2001, DSHS took custody of A.B. and placed her temporarily


In re the Welfare of A.B., No. 80759-1

in a licensed foster home. Soon thereafter, DSHS commenced dependency
proceedings and promptly notified Salas, whom J.B. had named as A.B.'s father.
J.B.'s parental rights were later terminated, and she is not a party to this appeal.
Salas' paternity of A.B. was confirmed on June 25, 2002.
Never married to J.B., Salas was living in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the time
A.B. was born. Due to his own prior drug abuse, he was being supervised by a
Nevada drug court and was prohibited from leaving Nevada. As a result, he initially
was unable to attend the Yakima dependency hearings in person, although appeared
and participated through court-appointed counsel.
According to the trial court's written findings of fact, Salas last abused drugs
in late 2001. Around that same time, Salas and his mother asked DSHS to arrange
for a Nevada home study, in the hope that A.B. could be placed in the home that
Salas, his mother, and her husband (Salas' stepfather) were then sharing. Nevada
declined, citing his criminal history and the fact that his paternity had not yet been
On February 4, 2002, the trial court entered an order finding that A.B. was
dependent. It also ruled that Salas could visit A.B. so long as he did so in Yakima.
About the same time, DSHS removed A.B. from the foster home where she had
been living since late October and placed her in the home of T.L., a distant cousin of
J.B.'s. A.B. has resided with T.L. ever since.
While these events were taking place, Salas continued to participate in the
Nevada drug court program, and he found steady employment in Las Vegas.

In re the Welfare of A.B., No. 80759-1

Shortly after his paternity was confirmed, he reiterated his request for a Nevada
home study. Nevada again denied the request, this time citing his criminal history
and prior drug use.
By February 25, 2003, Salas had successfully completed his drug court
program and was no longer prohibited from leaving Nevada. On that date, he came
to Yakima and had his first supervised visit with A.B., who by then was almost 16
months old.
On June 11, 2003, Salas moved from Las Vegas to Yakima. On June 13, two
days later, he presented himself to the DSHS caseworker, and she arranged for
urinalyses, a parenting assessment, and supervised visits three times a week for an
hour each time. That same month, Salas began visiting A.B. regularly and
frequently, albeit under supervision.
Visitation progressed so well over the summer that by September 2003, the
DSHS caseworker thought that A.B. had come to see Salas as "someone who was
in her life consistently . . . [a]nd so she began to trust."6 At a September meeting

called to plan where A.B. should be permanently placed, the caseworker noted that
she was planning to arrange increased visitation without supervision, and that she
was moving toward placing A.B. in Salas' home, despite T.L.'s apparent
On September 16, 2003, Salas' first unsupervised visitation was scheduled to
take place at a Yakima park. The caseworker and A.B. were there on time, but


Salas never arrived. An hour after the appointed time, Salas' stepfather called to
say that Salas was in jail for pushing a police officer who had tried to intervene in a
fight between Salas and his then-girlfriend, C.S.
Due in part to an immigration hold, Salas remained in jail for the next four
months. During that period, he did not see A.B., and the DSHS caseworker
changed her permanent plan from one that would have reunited A.B. and Salas, to
one that would terminate their parent-child relationship and make A.B. available for
adoption by T.L.
Visitation resumed in January 2004, but it was different from before. A.B.
seemed not to recognize Salas, and she treated him like a stranger. Rather than
showing any sort of attachment to Salas, one observer noted, A.B. constantly turned
to T.L., who was also present at the visitations. According to the April 2003 report
of another observer, A.B. seemed not to want to leave T.L.'s side during the
visitations. At trial, the DSHS caseworker explained that four and a half months can
be a very long time to a child of A.B.'s age, and that A.B.'s reluctance to interact
with Salas was likely due to the gap between visits that had occurred while Salas
was in jail. Nonetheless, Salas visited A.B. every week from February 2004
through most of February 2005.
Meanwhile, in May 2004, Salas married C.S, the girlfriend with whom he had
been fighting the previous September. Their relationship was "dysfunctional and
unhealthy,"7 and they separated in July 2004, after only three months of marriage.


On January 1, 2005, C.S. gave birth to Salas' child, A.S. When C.S. left the
hospital, the heat at her house was turned off, and she had nowhere to go.
Consequently, Salas allowed her and the three persons living with her (A.S., the
new baby; G.S., C.S.'s older child from another relationship; and C.S.'s disabled
adult sister) to move in with him. In February 2005, C.S. was convicted for
criminally mistreating her disabled sister -- an event of which Salas disclaims all
knowledge, and for which he was never charged.
In late February 2005, Salas moved back to Las Vegas, where he resumed
living with his mother and stepfather and working at the steady job he previously
had held. His mother and stepfather having been made guardians of A.S., the baby
born on January 1, 2005, and Salas having received custody of G.S., C.S.'s older
child from another relationship, by virtue of a tribal court order, the five of them,
three adults and two children, have since resided together in the home of his mother
and stepfather.
Although Salas visited A.B. regularly from February 2004 until February
2005, his return to Las Vegas caused him to miss a visitation that was scheduled for
February 25, 2005. He next saw A.B. in May, when he called the DSHS
caseworker and requested weekend visitation because he would now have to travel
from Las Vegas. When the caseworker told him that weekend visits were not
available, they agreed that Salas and A.B. would visit on Friday afternoon, May 20,
2004. Although the visit took place as scheduled, A.B. continued to refuse to
interact with him, and he did not visit again before trial.

On June 13-17, 2005, a bench trial was held on a petition for termination that
the State had filed in September 2004. On June 17, 2005, the trial court exercised
its discretion not to resolve the case at that time. The court orally stated that it was
"not satisfied that all necessary services have been identified and provided,"8 and

that there "is some likelihood that conditions can be remedied, so that this father can
continue to be involved in this child's life."9 The court decided that it would

continue the trial so as to give Salas time "to convince me that I should not
terminate the relationship with this child. And the way you can do that is by coming
up with some plan. I want it in writing, and I want some evidence between now and
then that's not just on paper."10 Cautioning Salas not to "heave a sigh of relief,

yet," the court stated that A.B. "is ok" at T.L.'s house, and that "it's going to take
an unbelievable effort for you to dislodge [her] from that home."11

From mid-June until trial reconvened in November, Salas attempted to meet
the trial court's concerns. He visited A.B. every two weeks. He obtained a new
domestic violence evaluation in Las Vegas and began a new 26-week domestic
violence treatment program. On August 4, 2005, he presented the court with a plan
for continuing substance abuse treatment and testing, maintaining his domestic
violence program, managing his relationship with C.S., paying child support for
A.B., and obtaining parenting and personal assessments. He identified a Las Vegas


family counselor, pediatrician, and elementary school, and, on August 21, 2005, he
divorced C.S.
On November 16-22, 2005, the rest of the trial was held. On November 22,
2005, the trial court took the case under advisement, and on January 5, 2006, it filed
a 16-page memorandum opinion, the contents of which are discussed below. The
court concluded that it was satisfied DSHS had presented clear, cogent, and
convincing evidence establishing the criteria set forth in RCW 13.34.180(1), and
that it was satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that A.B.'s permanent
placement with T.L. would be in A.B.'s best interests. The court was also satisfied,
it said, "that it is in the child's best interest to maintain a relationship with her father
and his family provided that the continuation of that relationship does not constitute
a perpetual challenge to the legitimacy of the placement with [T.L.]."12 Nowhere in

its opinion did the court state that Salas was then unfit to parent. Believing that "the
only way to resolve this dilemma is through the creation of an open adoption" and
that "open adoption would allow for the child and for the continuation of the father-
child relationship," the court concluded by directing the parties

to engage in discussions to determine whether an open adoption is
possible and then to report back to the Court within thirty days from
the date herein. If it turns out that the parties cannot agree on this
alternative, then the Court will hear further argument and will decide if
the best interests of the child in having a permanent home with [T.L.]
require the termination of the father-child relationship.[13]


Although neither party has furnished us with a record of any subsequent court
proceedings, it is apparent that the parties were unable to reach agreement. Thus,
on March 31, 2006, the court entered formal written findings of fact and conclusions
of law. Parroting the language of RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) and (e), the court found
that "[a]ll services ordered under RCW 13.34.136 and all necessary and reasonable
available services capable of correcting parental deficiencies within the foreseeable
future have been offered or provided in an express and understandable manner,"14

and that "[t]here is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child
could be returned to or placed with her father in the near future."15 Nowhere in its

findings and conclusions, however, did the court expressly find that Salas was then
unfit to be a parent.
Also on March 31, 2006, the trial court entered an order terminating Salas'
relationship with his daughter. Salas appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
affirmed, and then to this court, which granted discretionary review.

As noted at the outset, Salas now argues (a) that a parent has a due process
right to have his or her relationship with a natural child terminated only if the trial
court makes a finding of current parental unfitness, and (b) that in this case the trial


court did not make such a finding. Thus, he concludes that the trial court's order
terminating his relationship with his daughter violated his right to due process. In
addition to arguing the flip side of Salas' issues, the State responds that we must
imply the necessary finding and that it trumped Salas' right to such a finding by
presenting substantial evidence. Rejecting these responses, we agree with Salas.
The first question here is whether a parent has a due process right not to have
the State terminate his or her relationship with a natural child in the absence of an
express or implied finding that he or she, at the time of trial, is currently unfit to
parent the child. According to the United States Supreme Court, this court, and our
Court of Appeals, the answer is yes.
In Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599
(1982), the United States Supreme Court said that "[v]ictory by the state [i.e., the
entry of an order terminating parental rights] entails a judicial determination that the
parents are unfit to raise their own children." Moreover, the Court went on to say
that "until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital
interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship." Id.16

by a mere preponderance-of-evidence standard of proof, the Court held that the
State had to prove the elements of its case that were necessary to terminate the
parent-child relationship by a standard of proof "equal to or greater than" clear and
convincing evidence.
In In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 141-42, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995),
this court cited and followed Santosky. We held that Washington's termination
statute, RCW 13.34.180(1), implicitly requires evidence of current parental
unfitness, and thus "comports with the constitutional due process requirement that
unfitness be established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence."17 We further

held that "after reviewing the entire record and examining the requirements of RCW
13.34.180 and 13.34.190,"18 the trial judge had made the required findings, albeit

In at least six cases, our Court of Appeals has ruled or noted similarly. In In
re Dependency of S.G., 140 Wn. App. 461, 468-69, 166 P.3d 802 (2007), Division
Three ruled, "The court must first conclude that the parent is deficient before it can
terminate the parent's legal relationship with his child. . . . Without a problem, there
can be no solution." In In re Dependency of T.L.G., 126 Wn. App. 181, 203, 108
P.3d 156 (2005), Division One stated, "Termination must be based on current
unfitness; children may not be removed from their homes merely because their
parents are mentally ill." In In re Dependency of A.S., 101 Wn. App. 60, 70-71, 6

P.3d 11 (2000) (citing Santosky, 455 U.S. 745; K.R., 128 Wn.2d at 141-42),
Division One noted that it is a "constitutional due process requirement that unfitness
be established by clear, cogent and convincing evidence." In In re Dependency of
A.W., 53 Wn. App. 22, 29, 765 P.2d 307 (1988) (citing Krause v. Catholic Cmty.
Servs., 47 Wn. App 734, 743, 737 P.2d 280 (1987)), Division One said that
"termination decisions are predicated upon present parental unfitness." In In re
Welfare of C.B., 134 Wn. App. 942, 143 P.3d 846 (2006), Division Two essentially
held that where the evidence was insufficient to support finding that the mother of
child was currently deficient, the trial court could not make such a finding, and
without such a finding, the trial court could not terminate the mother's relationship
with her child. In In re Welfare of Churape, 43 Wn. App. 634, 638, 719 P.2d 127
(1986), Division Three essentially held that the trial court could not terminate the
relationship between a father and his children where the evidence was insufficient to
support a finding that the father was currently deficient at the time of trial, even if
the evidence showed that the father was deficient at an earlier time. Based on the
rulings of all of these courts, we hold that a parent has a constitutional due process
right not to have his or her relationship with a natural child terminated in the
absence of a trial court finding of fact that he or she is currently unfit to parent the
The next question is whether the trial court actually made such a finding here.
Neither party has pointed us to anything in the record demonstrating that the trial

court made the required finding expressly. Nor have we ourselves discovered
anything to that effect. Necessarily then, we conclude that the trial court did not
make the required finding expressly.
The State asks us to fill the void by implying that the trial court found Salas
was not currently fit to parent A.B. at the time of trial. As support for its request,
the State relies on K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, wherein we implied a finding of current
parental unfitness even though the trial court had not made the finding explicitly. In
K.R., as discussed above, we agreed that a finding of current parental unfitness is
necessary to sustain a judgment terminating parental rights, but we then stated,
"[N]o explicit finding of current parental unfitness is required. However, if the State
proves the allegations [set forth in RCW 13.34.180], an implicit finding of current
parental unfitness has been made." Id. at 141-42 (citing Krause, 47 Wn. App. at
At issue here is whether this language from K.R. always, or only sometimes,
permits an appellate court to imply or infer a finding of current parental unfitness.
Because the facts and circumstances under which an appellate court is asked to
imply or infer a finding of current parental unfitness can vary so dramatically from
case to case, it cannot reasonably be asserted that just because an implication or
inference can sometimes be drawn, it can always be drawn. Accordingly, we
conclude that when an appellate court is faced with a record that omits an explicit
finding of current parental unfitness, the appellate court can imply or infer the
omitted finding if -- but only if -- all the facts and circumstances in the record

(including but not limited to any boiler plate findings that parrot RCW 13.34.180)
clearly demonstrate that the omitted finding was actually intended, and thus made,
by the trial court. To hold otherwise would be illogical, and it would permit trial
and appellate courts easily to sidestep the due process requirement that a judgment
terminating parental rights be grounded on an actual (as opposed to a fictional)
finding of current parental unfitness.19

Significantly, the trial court in this case made a number of findings that
affirmatively conflict. Although the trial court entered boiler plate findings that
parroted each element of RCW 13.34.180(1) -- in finding of fact 1.32, for example,
the court parroted RCW 13.34.180(1) (e) by finding "little likelihood that conditions
will be remedied so that the child can be returned to or placed with her father in the
near future"20 -- it also entered individually tailored findings to the contrary. It
stated, for example, that Salas had been "clean and sober" since late 2001;21 that he
had "participated in a variety of services" since early 2002;22 that he had been

steadily employed since returning to Las Vegas in 2005; that he had "indicated from
the very beginning a strong desire to have custody of the child and to also have his
own family involved in her life;"23 and that despite Salas and his family having

19 Cf. State v. Stein, 140 Wn. App. 43, 66, 165 P.3d 16 (2007) (appellate court implied finding
where record showed that trial court had actually made it, even though trial court had not
explicitly stated that it was making finding); State v. Souza, 60 Wn. App. 534, 543, 805 P.2d 237
(1991) (appellate court could not imply finding where evidence was disputed).
20 CP at 91. The finding did not identify the conditions to which the court was referring.


"made almost heroic efforts" to make their visits with A.B. meaningful, they had
been unable to establish a "close attachment" between Salas and A.B.24 Although

the trial court also found that the problems between Salas and A.B. were "profound
and intractable," it strongly implied that those problems were not attributable to
Salas when, in the very same finding by which it exonerated DSHS from
responsibility for such problems, it speculated, without mentioning Salas, that the
problems were perhaps "the result of subtle changes in the child's relationship with
her caretaker and her original status as a drug-affected newborn."25 Given their

conflicting nature, these individually tailored findings make it impossible to discern
that the trial court actually found that Salas was currently unfit to parent his
daughter, and, as a result, we may not now imply such a finding.
We confirm this conclusion by looking to the trial court's memorandum
opinion, which contains many additional statements inconsistent with an actual
finding that Salas was currently unfit at the time of trial. It states, for example, that
"the father has presented some excellent credentials as a responsible adult:"

(a) He has a good job, a demonstrated work ethic, and a
commitment to providing financial support for his family[.]
(b) He has overcome a substance abuse problem, been clean
and sober for four years, and been willing and able to continue
counseling and treatment as required[.]
(c) He has participated in domestic violence and anger
management counseling[.]
(d) He has maintained a patient and loving commitment to


In re the Welfare of A.B., No. 80759-1

visitations with his child, despite frequent indications of resistance by
the child[.]
(e) He is a part of a loving and caring extended family who
maintain a safe and stable home in Las Vegas[.]
(f) He has disengaged himself physically and legally from a
dysfunctional and unhealthy relationship with [C.S.] and taken
appropriate steps to care for two children from that relationship.[26]

It also states, for example:

[C]ertain legal troubles in Las Vegas and Yakima, as well as financial
difficulties, have hampered [Salas'] ability to successfully complete all
treatment recommendations and to maintain consistent and meaningful
contact with the child. Despite these circumstances he has demonstrated a
sincere and conscientious commitment in this case regarding his child.[27]

The father has had over 100 visitations with the child, including many where
his mother was also present. The father and his family have made almost
heroic efforts to participate in the visits and to try and make them meaningful,
but despite their efforts the visitations have not established a close attachment
between father and child.[28]

There have been indications over the last two and a half years of great
potential for an attachment between the father and child in this case. Given
the father's significant progress and his potential to be a positive male figure
in the child's life, it would not be in the child's best interest to completely
sever the relationship with his child at this time so long as this relationship
does not conflict with the permanent placement for the child.[29]

Reading this record as a whole, we cannot conclude that the trial court was actually
making a finding that Salas was currently unfit to parent A.B., and, accordingly, we


may not imply such a finding here.
The State contends that it presented substantial evidence of Salas' current
unfitness to parent. The effect, the State seems to conclude, is to adversely impact
Salas' argument that the trial court violated his right to due process when it
terminated his relationship with his daughter without first finding that he was
currently unfit to parent. We cannot agree.
To ask whether the State presented substantial evidence is to ask whether the
trial court could have found for the State.30 To ask whether Salas' due process right

to a finding of unfitness was violated is to ask what the trial court did find. But to
hold that the trial court could have found Salas currently unfit says nothing about
whether the trial court did (or did not) find that. Thus, even if we assume the
contention is correct, it is nonresponsive and irrelevant to Salas' due process
argument,31 and it can have no impact here, adverse or otherwise. Accordingly, we

decline to address it further.
In addition to arguing that the trial court violated his right to due process by
not actually finding that he was currently unfit, Salas argues that the trial court

30 E.g., In re Dependency of C.B., 61 Wn. App. 280, 283-85, 810 P.2d 518 (1991) (in a
termination case, evidence is substantial (or, equivalently, sufficient to support a trial court
finding) if, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed below, a
rational and reasonable trier of fact could find each element of the case in accordance with the
applicable burden of persuasion); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct.
2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979) (same formulation in a criminal case).
31 Although Salas argued in the Court of Appeals that the evidence was not substantial, he
abandoned that argument when he moved this court for discretionary review. Mot. for
Discretionary Review at 1-2. We also did not grant discretionary review on that question.

misapplied the two-step statutory scheme embodied in RCW 13.34.180-.190. To
reiterate part of what we said near the outset of this opinion, when a Washington
court applies the first step of that scheme, it is obliged to focus on the alleged
unfitness of the parent, 32 which must be proved by clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence,33 and when it applies the second step, it focuses on the child's best
interests,34 which need be proved by only a preponderance of the evidence.35 But it

is "premature" for the trial court to address the second step before it has resolved
the first.36

Parenthetically, Washington's two part scheme seems to be based at least in
part on Santosky.37 While addressing the constitutionality of New York's statutory

termination scheme, the United States Supreme Court characterized the scheme as
having two phases: a "factfinding" phase designed to deal with terminating the
parent's rights, and a "dispositional" phase designed to deal with the child's best
interests. The Court then said, "The factfinding [between parent and the State] is
not intended to balance the child's interest in a normal family home against the
parents' interest in raising the child. Nor does it purport to determine whether the
natural parents or the foster parent would provide the better home."38 Rather, the

32 RCW 13.34.180(1); S.G., 140 Wn. App. 461; Churape, 43 Wn. App. at 638-39.
Id. at 759.

Court said, it is designed to focus on whether "the natural parents are at fault" and
litigate questions of "what the State did" and "what the natural parents did not
do."39 In contrast, the dispositional phase is when the court can base its order

"'solely on ... the best interests of the child,'" and it comes "[a]fter the State has
established parental unfitness."40

In the course of deciding whether to terminate Salas' parental rights, the trial
court in this case reasoned in part that A.B had been living with T.L. all of her life;
that A.B. was fully integrated into T.L.'s home and had not developed a significant
relationship with Salas; and "that it is in [A.B.'s] best interest to maintain a
relationship with her father and his family provided that the continuation of that
relationship does not constitute a perpetual challenge to the legitimacy of the
placement with [T.L.]."41 In making these and other similar statements, the trial

court was obviously focusing on A.B.'s best interests, as opposed to Salas' current
unfitness. Accordingly, we are required to hold that the trial court reasoned
In conclusion, a judgment terminating parental rights cannot stand absent a


finding of current parental unfitness. An appellate court may imply the existence of
such a finding if -- but only if -- the facts and circumstances clearly demonstrate that
the finding was actually made by the trial court. Given that the facts and
circumstances here do not so show, and that lack of an essential finding is presumed
equivalent to a finding against the party with the burden of proof,42 we reverse the

judgment entered below and remand to the trial court with directions that unless the
parties agree otherwise in writing or on the record of the court, it shall supervise the
prompt but orderly transfer of A.B. to Salas' home and, once that is accomplished,
dismiss the case with prejudice.

42 State v. Armenta, 134 Wn.2d 1, 14, 948 P.2d 1280 (1997) ("In the absence of a finding on a
factual issue we must indulge the presumption that the party with the burden of proof failed
sustain their burden on this issue."); Smith v. King, 106 Wn.2d 443, 451, 722 P.2d 796 (1986)
("[W]e presume from the absence of further findings in that regard that second purchasers [who
had the burden of proof] failed to sustain their burden.); Golberg v. Sanglier, 96 Wn.2d 874, 880,
638 P.2d 1347, 647 P.2d 489 (1982) (same); Pilling v. E. & Pac. Enters. Trust, 41 Wn. App.
158, 165, 702 P.2d 1232 (1985) (same).


In re the Welfare of A.B., No. 80759-1

J. Dean Morgan, Justice Pro Tem.

Justice Susan Owens

Justice Mary E. Fairhurst

Justice James M. Johnson

We Won! We Won! We Won!

Congratulations, to attorney Susan Wilk for an incredible effort!

Thank God!!!

In the Case of ALSB .....Families won a big one...government lost!

The Washington State Supreme Court reversed the lower court. The child is going back to the dad!
This is huge!

In this case the Hispanic father from Yakima had drug problems. (Unlike the Stuths or Willards for whom the department had to make up...lie...about "issues.") He was told if he went through a drug treatment program and visited his daughter regularly, he would be able to keep his daughter.

He moved to California and enrolled in and completed a treatment program. His mother and he drove to Yakima and made ALL of the visitation dates...and...the department took his little girl anyway! (They seem to like little girls.)

This man's daughter was adopted out. His case failed on appeal. Then Susan Wilk of the Washington Appellate Project argued the case before the WA State Supreme Court in June of 2008! This case took 2 years to decide. (But it was worth the wait!)

The man will get his daughter back.

If anyone reading this blog has had a similar case....go talk to a lawyer with this case in hand.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

DSHS Omits Background Checks For Foster Providers

State audit uncovers problems at DSHS
An annual audit of the state's Department of Social and Health Services found that background checks were not always performed on people who provide services to children in foster care.

By Christine Clarridge

Seattle Times staff reporter


DSHS audit (PDF)
An annual audit of the state's Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) found that background checks were not always performed on people who provide services to children in foster care.

The audit, released this month, also found that $350,000 was paid in insurance premiums for employees who were no longer with the department and dozens of former employees had access to "sensitive" and "vulnerable" information in the DSHS computer systems.

Those were among the problems found in the audit of the department that consumes nearly one-third of the state's budget and is charged with providing services to its neediest and most vulnerable citizens.

According to the report, auditors from the state Auditor's Office looked at whether the department complied with state laws and its own policies and procedures, focusing on areas deemed to be at high risk for noncompliance, misappropriation and misuse.

Four areas of concern were noted in the audit:

• Department payroll accounts were not always updated, resulting in some employees being overpaid, some employees' wages being over-garnisheed and an overpayment of $350,000 in medical-insurance premiums for former employees.

• The department had no formal process for deactivating account access to people who were no longer employed with DSHS. The audit found that at least 100 ex-employees still had access to the department's computer systems and databases.

In a printed response with the audit, DSHS concedes the department should do a better job of updating payroll and insurance accounts and eliminating ex-employees' access to databases.

"We will reassess and strengthen our internal controls to ensure there are no delays in deactivating employees access ... when it is no longer necessary," the department responded.

• Western State Hospital, one of the state's three facilities for the mentally ill, does not have adequate controls to prevent the misuse of patient funds.

According to the auditor, numerous cashiers have access to the funds and the cash drawers and money vault are not always locked.

DSHS said corrective security and accountability measures were implemented at the hospital in November.

• DSHS had failed to conduct the criminal background checks on all child care and foster-care providers as required by law.

Auditors said they looked at individuals who had received a payment for services from DSHS then selected 200 individuals for whom they could find no background check.

The department was able to provide documentation of a background check on 174 of them.

Among the 26 remaining individuals, the auditors found two foster-care providers whose background checks were not current, one foster-care provider who disclosed a disqualifying crime and five providers whose files were flagged for additional reviews that were never done.

DSHS said it researched the cases highlighted in the audit and found that payments were made to individuals who had provided services, such as transportation, to foster children but did not involve individuals with whom children were placed.

Department spokesman Thomas Shapley said the department implemented a program in January that does not allow payments to providers who have not passed background checks.

Christine Clarridge: 206-464-8983 or cclarridge@seattletimes.com

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Pam Roach Reelection Press Release

For Immediate Release

Senator Pam Roach files for reelection

State Senator Pam Roach (R-Auburn) filed for reelection to the State Senate on Monday, the first day of filing.

“The economy is the most pressing issue facing our state right now, “ said Roach. “We need to make it easier for businesses to prosper and stay in business. There is a “job drain” when companies leave the state or are threatened with closure.”

Roach earned a 100% rating from the Association of Washington Business. She has been endorsed in her reelection by Pierce County Master Builders, King County Association of Realtors, state veterinarians and local business leaders.

Roach has also been endorsed by unions including the Washington Federation of State Employees who cited her work to save Rainier School, the King County Police Officers Guild, the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association, and Valley Professional Fire Fighters.

Many local civic leaders have also endorsed Pam Roach. They include: Auburn Mayor Pete Lewis, former Auburn Mayor Chuck Booth, Bonney Lake Mayor Neil Johnson, Edgewood Mayor Jeff Hogan, Enumclaw Mayor Liz Reynolds and many city council and school board members.

“I work hard for the people in the district and their issues,” said Roach. Pam Roach began the efforts that saved Lake Tapps, kept sex predators from being sited in residential Auburn, and led efforts to stop unnecessary tax increases proposed by a hospital annexation.

Roach is currently working to save Rainier School from closure. “ Enumclaw and Buckley will suffer huge job losses if Rainier closes. And, said Roach, residents are best“We need a new vision for Rainier, “ said Roach who is heading up an ad hoc group to save the institution.

Senator Roach is having a campaign BBQ and rally on July 24th, from 1 to 3 PM. The location is the family farm which is on the Green Valley Road near Flaming Geyser Park.

Confirmed attendees of the event are: Attorney General Rob McKenna, Justice Richard Sanders, U.S. Senate candidate Dino Rossi, King County Council Members Pete von Reichbauer and Reagan Dunn, Pierce County Council Member Shawn Bunny, and activist Tim Eyman.

The public may obtain tickets to the BBQ and rally by contacting pamroach@comcast.net

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Yes...There Is Enough Evil In The World...And What Was CPS Doing While This Was Going On?

Pulkkinen's story does raise more questions. What about the other children in the home? Was this family ever reported to CPS and then overlooked?

Note in the article it says, "Having pleaded previously to first degree rape and related charges..." ****!!!!???? and the kids are with the father????

Was this father a part of the SSOSA program (Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative)? That is where Daddy can rape you or someone in your family and if Daddy pleads guilty and agrees to "treatment" government lets by-gones be by-gones. Yes, government goes to that extent to keep families together and yet they take kids, regularly, when no abuse is even suggested. So what about the victim that often still lives with the rapist!

And, Dear Reader...What do you want to bet that the state demands that the little girl have visits with her mommy and daddy while they are in prison? Yep! That's where this is headed. Forcing the child to see her abusers is reabuse.

Dad who video taped daughter's rape says sorry for 'poor judgment,' Judge gives man the max; girl's mother awaits trial

A Kent man accused of joining his wife in raping their 4-year-old daughter live online was sentenced Friday, receiving a punishment that could see him locked away indefinitely.

Filing charges in October, King County prosecutors accused Brian Keith Beston, 36, and Hollie Beston, 32, of repeatedly sexually assaulting their child in trade for child pornography. Authorities began investigating the Bestons after a convicted child molester told authorities he'd been exchanging child pornography with them.

Having pleaded guilty previously to first-degree rape and related charges, Brian Beston was sentenced to a minimum prison term of more than 26 years. After serving that time, he'll remain confined until state authorities deem him fit for release.

Addressing King County Superior Court Judge Regina Cahan, Beston claimed remorse before apologizing for a his "poor judgment" and saying he hoped to mend fences with his children (plural!!!) in the future.

The mea culpa left Cahan unimpressed.

"To call it a lapse of judgment is beyond an understatement," Cahan told Beston before sentencing him to the maximum. (maximum/minimum...which is it?)

"A fundamental parental obligation is to protect your child," she continued. "You've done the opposite of that. You've victimized your own child."

Hollie Beston remains jailed and has not yet entered a plea. She's scheduled to again appear in court July 20.

Writing the court previously, Senior Deputy Prosecutor Zachary Wagnild described the assaults to the court as "horrific."

"Both defendants were involved in the repeated rape and sexual abuse of their 4-year-old daughter," Wagnild told the court. "The couple … (entered) into an agreement with an individual in California to send him images of themselves sexually abusing their daughter in return for images of him sexually abusing his own children."

According to court documents, members of a Seattle police child-abuse task force learned of the abuse after a San Diego, Calif., child molester told investigators there that he'd met the Bestons after posting a Craigslist advertisement posing as a single mother.

The offender told federal investigators that Brian Beston, of Kent, responded to his advertisement immediately and shortly thereafter began sending photos of a young girl the offender later learned was the Bestons' daughter, prosecutors allege. The couple went on to set up a live camera session during which Beston could be seen sexually assaulting his child.

Notified of the allegations Oct. 23, officers with the Seattle Internet crimes against children unit found the Bestons' home and took them into custody later that day.

Confronted by officers, Detective Tye Holand claimed in court documents, Hollie Beston admitted to watching as Brian Beston assaulted the child, and to taking still photos and video of the assaults.

Brian Beston made a similar admission, describing in detail his molestation of his own daughter.

Addressing the court Friday, Senior Deputy Prosecutor Julie Kays noted that the Bestons decision to make a video of the assaults on their daughter -- a video they attempted to use to gain photos of other children being abused -- demanded the most severe sentence possible.

"For this little girl to have her parents do this to her is particularly horrific, and particularly disturbing," Kays told Cahan.

Joined by members of her family, several women close to the girl spoke on her behalf Friday.

All asked that Beston receive the sentence Cahan handed him. Several suggested Beston's claims of remorse were contrived, in part because they'd heard him offer similar assurances after he molested another girl.

"This is not the only child he has abused," one woman close to the girl said.

"Things that are done in secret do come to light," she continued. "I don't understand how he did what he did. The only word to describe it is evil."

Beston did not undertake a pre-sentencing assessment in which he would have been asked about his history of abuse. Through his attorney, he denied the claim.

Speaking to Cahan, Beston offered an apology for his actions.

"They were morally and legally wrong and as a result of my actions … I have robbed my little girl," Beston told the court.

Both Bestons have been charged with first-degree child rape, first-degree child molestation, sexual exploitation of a minor and dealing child pornography. Brian Beston pleaded guilty as charged; both remain jailed.

Levi Pulkkinen can be reached at 206-448-8348 or levipulkkinen@seattlepi.com. Follow Levi on Twitter at twitter.com/levipulk.

(There is a comment to this entry that states 1/2 of those in our prisons are sex abusers. That is not the case. and, we have a special commitment center for sex offenders. One of the most egregious parts of sentencing if you are a victim is that the sex crime against you can go unpunished if the perpetrator is allowed into the SSOSA program. And, what kind of message does THAT send to the victim?)

Saturday, June 5, 2010

WSPTA, Vets, and Realtors Endorse Pam Roach For Reelection

In just another day I will be driving to Olympia and to the Office of the Secretary of State to file for reelection to the State Senate.

There is no ceremony that goes with this. You fill out the filing form and write a check for the filing fee. Then you go back to doorbelling. Simple.

Prior to filing, candidates have been working on their campaigns for many months. Things then start to come together.

This week I was endorsed for reelection by the WA State Veterinary Association and the King County Realtors. The process is one in which the boards of the organizations review your record if you are an incumbent...maybe have a Q and A (not all do this). Then there is a vote.

I am humbled by the words in the endorsement letter from the WA State Patrol Troopers Association. The letter read:
"The decision was unanimous. Your commitment to service to the state of Washington with honor and integrity are principles that our members demand. Your understanding of public safety matters and your position on issues critical to every Trooper's professional and personal life make you the clear choice.

The citizens of our state will be fortunate to have an individual of your caliber in such an important position. Be assured that our members stand solidly in support of your re-election campaign."

I am very proud to have earned this and other endorsements. There are five more months before the election and it is good to go into it with the support of organizations, famiy, friends, and individaul citizens who work to help the campaign. Thank you, everyone.

"Shack'in Up" Placement

This was written to Denise by a reader. I thought some would be interested in it because it brings up another issue.

"Ms. Denise Revels Robinson, I am witting concerning my granddaughter, __________. She’s been living with what children services in Tumwater, WA. call a “suitable placement.” I do not believe that Ms.______ and her Boyfriend are suitable. They teach my granddaughter her A, B, C’s and 1, 2, 3’s and to call them mommy and daddy. It is inappropriate for Ms. ______ and her Boyfriend to encourage my granddaughter to call them “mommy and daddy.“ They are not teaching her morals and healthy family values. Kim G. stated to me that C.P.S. has no policy against a child being placed in a live in fornicating situation, but I do. My granddaughter needs to be placed with her secure, stable and loving biological family. We will teach her all she needs to know, plus good morals and values. Ms. ________ and her boyfriend have befriend C.P.S. Kim G. The recommendation will be that my granddaughter remain with her “suitable placement” permanently, no matter who I write to express my concerns. That‘s what she told me. My granddaughter has the right to spend the rest of her life with her biological family and not living in sin with girlfriend “mommy” and boyfriend “daddy.“ I want my granddaughter out of that shack ‘ n up, no morals or values, fornicating place and put with her family. Ms. Robinson, I am again requesting to speak with you."

Thank you,
(I removed the name. PR)

(Dear Readers: It has been my experience that there are certainly many things left out of consideration. The federal government has a much better system that it uses with tribal placements. Assuming that a child needs to be taken...there can and should be considerations of heritage and ethnicity. Many of the children go back to relatives and should not have family values undermined. Shouldn't there be respect for the teachings of the family? Why are non-tribal children not afforded the protections that tribal children have through federal law?)