I hadn’t “failed to adequately explain why my parental rights should be restored” because I hadn’t raised this issue in this appeal. I hadn’t “failed to adequately explain why my parental rights should be restored” because my parental rights had not been constitutionally and lawfully terminated.
Actions to terminate parental rights are statutorily governed under RCW 13.34 – Juvenile Court Act In Cases Relating To Dependency Of A Child And The Termination Of A Parent And Child Relationship. Issues involving custody in family law matters are statutorily governed under RCW 26. Custody determinations in family law matters are not authorized under RCW 13.34, and RCW 13.34 dependency/termination matters are never heard in family law court, RCW 26.
At no time was there a RCW 13.34 motion to lawfully terminate my parental rights ever filed.
The conclusion by Chief Judge Webster that I had “failed to adequately explain why my parental rights should be restored,” exhibits that he did not render an informed decision. Even when the constitutional errors in his ruling were detailed in a motion for reconsideration, Chief Judge Webster refused to reconsider his opinion.
Perhaps the judiciary’s complaints about the overcrowding of court calendars in family law matters are not the result of dysfunctional family units, but rather the result of our judiciary being ignorant of the law!
My letters were ignored. What a surprise!
It was in 1995 that I opened my bed-and-breakfast and soon thereafter met Shirl, my Spirit Guides and began the journey to awaken my spirituality. The story of my spiritual journey is in my book “Good Heavens! My Journey with Spirit Guides.” Order it today!