A: The entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are mandatory in all custody orders. CR 52. Having entirely ignored the law by entering the December 30, 1988 Order of Default without entering requisite Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, having entered the December 30, 1988 Order of Default without possessing the constitutional authority to do so, and because there is no provision in the law for entering default custody orders in contested family law matters in the first place, one can only assume that FLC DuBuque’s revision of her own December 30, 1988 Order of Default was an attempt by her to preserve her façade of judicial integrity for the forthcoming appellate process.
In their appellate opinion, Division I declared that no Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to satisfy the mandatory statutory criteria in modification proceedings were entered by FLC DuBuque relative to her December 30, 1988 Order of Default. Division I declared that the only finding entered by FLC DuBuque in her December 30, 1988 Order of Default was that I was in default. Reference: Division I Court of Appeals decision 23218-5-I at p. 14.
A: On May 3, 1989, King County Superior Court Judge Robert Dixon dismissed the Custodial Interference charge against me “with prejudice.”
A dismissal “with prejudice” is reserved for the most egregious acts of prosecutorial misconduct as a “with prejudice” dismissal forever bars a prosecutor from re-filling the charge. This “with prejudice” dismissal is so rare that it was not anticipated by my attorney. The May 3, 1989 Order of Dismissal reflects that the words “with prejudice” were added during the hearing and not included as part of the order prepared by my attorney prior to the hearing.
In the May 3, 1989 order, Judge Dixon declared: “…the court concluding that the orders of February 17, 1988 and March 11, 1988, upon which this action is based were entered in violation of defendant’s Due Process rights guaranteed under the state and federal constitutions and are void ab initio…the court further concluding that defendant retained lawful custody…and further concluding that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of guilt based upon undisputed facts and…further concluding that defendant has established a complete defense to this action…it is hereby ORDERED that this action be and the same is dismissed with prejudice….” Reference: KCSC Cause No. 88-1-1332-9 Order of Dismissal dated May 3, 1989.
A: FLC DuBuque, Det. Chapin, and Hepburn presented themselves as experts on Custodial Interference law and conducted a CLE (continuing legal education) seminar for attorneys titled “Civil Custodial Interference—Legal Perspectives on Child Abduction and Exploitation by Parents.”
At the time this seminar was conducted, FLC DuBuque, Det. Chapin and Hepburn were fully aware that the Custodial Interference charge had been dismissed with prejudice by Judge Dixon on May 3, 1989 and that the ruling by Judge Dixon was that the temporary orders entered by FLC Velatequi and FLC DuBuque were unconstitutional and void ab initio (in their entirety).
FLC DuBuque, Hepburn, and Det. Chapin conducted this CLE seminar based on their “professional experience” without regard to Judge Dixon’s ruling. As a result, we now have a population of lawyers in King County and Washington State as “expert” and “professional” in custodial interference law as FLC DuBuque, Hepburn, and Det. Chapin.
God help mothers and children.
