King County Family Law Commissioner (FLC): This is an appointed, not elected judicial position. Though a FLC is assigned a courtroom in the superior courthouse building, a FLC possesses no constitutional or statutory authority to modify existing Decrees in contested family law matters and no constitutional or statutory authority to render final decisions in contested family law matters. A FLC possesses no more constitutional or statutory authority to modify decrees in contested family law matters than does the check-out clerk at the local Wal-Mart. Constitutional authority to modify existing Decrees in contested family law matters or to render final decisions in contested family law matters is restricted to duly elected judges of the Article 4, Section 6, superior court.
A constitutional amendment which sought to empower family law commissioners with limited constitutional authority was rejected by Washington State voters prior to 1983. A second attempt to amend the state constitution and empower family law commissioners with limited constitutional authority also failed, rejected by the voters in November, 1991. Until such time as Art. 4, Sec. 6, of the Washington State Constitution is amended by Washington State voters, only duly elected judges of the Art. 4, Sec. 6 superior court possess the requisite constitutional authority to enter orders modifying existing Decrees in contested family law matters or to render final decisions in contested family law matters.
Until the voters of Washington State amend their state’s constitution, a FLC will remain required—by legislative statute—to transfer all contested family law matters to the Presiding Judge of the Art. 4, Sec. 6, superior court. Upon receipt of the contested matter, the Presiding Judge is required—also by legislative statute—to assign the contested matter a trial date before an Art. 4, Sec. 6, superior court judge for resolution. RCW 26.12.030.
Article 4, Section 6, Washington State Constitution: (Art. 4, Sec. 6): This is the provision in Washington State’s Constitution which empowers only duly elected judges to the superior court with the requisite jurisdiction and authority to enter orders modifying existing Decrees and/or render final decisions in family law, civil and criminal matters. This provision does not confer Art. 4, Sec. 6, superior court jurisdiction on the superior court building. Requisite constitutional jurisdiction only vests with those judges who have been duly elected to the Art. 4, Sec. 6 superior court by Washington State voters. This constitutional authority cannot be abrogated or subrogated by the state legislature or any judicial officer.
RCW 26.12.010 Jurisdiction conferred on superior court – Family court proceeding defined: (RCW 26.12.010) This statutory provision is an affirmation of constitutional power being conferred only on duly elected judges of the superior court under Art. 4, Sec. 6, of the Washington State Constitution. It states, in part: “Each superior court shall exercise the jurisdiction conferred by this chapter…”
RCW 26.12.215 – Revision by the superior court (RCW 26.12.215): The state legislature created this statutory provision to regulate the process for a revision of FLC orders. RCW 26.12.215 states that “All acts and proceedings of the court commissioners shall be subject to revision by the superior court as provided in RCW 2.24.050.”
Ordell v. Gaddis, 662, P.2d 49 (Wash. 1983) (“Gaddis”): For uniformity in judicial interpretation of the law, the lower courts (non-appellate courts) rely on published appellate opinions for direction and guidance in rendering their rulings. The Gaddis decision is a published opinion that was issued by the Washington State Supreme Court in 1983. Until the voters of Washington State amend Art. 4, Sec. 6, of the Washington State Constitution, Gaddis remains the controlling decision for interpretation of the many levels of judicial authority in the State of Washington. The Gaddis decision clearly found that family law commissioners possessed no constitutional authority whatsoever. The Gaddis decision states, in part: “The duties and powers of a family law commissioner are substantially limited and quite dissimilar from those authorized by the constitution.”
RCW 9A.40.080(2): This section of Washington State’s “Kidnapping, Unlawful Imprisonment, and Custodial Interference” statute declares that: “In any prosecution of custodial interference in the first or second degree, it is a complete defense, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s purpose was to protect the child, incompetent person, or himself or herself from imminent physical harm, and that the belief in the existence of the imminent physical harm was reasonable.”
This prequel is about what happened to me when the people in whom we put our trust to uphold the law violated the law.
