Loopholes in Child Welfare Oversight Draw New Scrutiny After Utah Defeat and Washington Courtroom Incident
A failed effort to strengthen child protection laws in Utah has drawn national attention to systemic gaps that enable caregivers to avoid engagement with child welfare authorities—gaps now on display in a Washington State courtroom where a judge appears to endorse them.
In Salt Lake City, Russell and Eve Franke, who endured significant abuse during their childhood under Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt, recently urged state legislators to revisit “Gavin’s Bill.” The proposal, named for a 12-year-old who succumbed to malnutrition and mistreatment, aimed to bolster the powers of the Division of Child and Family Services and local law enforcement when parents repeatedly decline to respond during investigations.
Kevin Franke, the siblings’ father, pointed to a core weakness in the existing framework: while officials may attempt in-person visits or phone contact, there is no legal requirement for parents to open their doors or take calls. Without cooperation, investigations frequently stall or end without resolution, leaving children in potentially hazardous environments.
Meanwhile, footage from Clallam County Superior Court provides a vivid illustration of how such leniency operates in practice. In a family law proceeding, Judge Brent Basden offered guidance to one parent on how best to navigate incoming child protective services involvement.
The case arose after a physician filed a 911 call citing concerns about the children’s living conditions—reporting shortages of food, heating, and running water. Rather than supporting the subsequent CPS interview, Judge Basden positioned the agency’s involvement as an unnecessary burden.
“CPS’s desire to do an interview doesn’t require you to do an interview,” he remarked from the bench. He further observed that each intervention by law enforcement tends to draw children back into the spotlight, “and um, and that I think deepens the problem.”
His comments came during a hearing where only one parent was directly responding to the CPS concerns, and that individual was affiliated with the LDS Port Angeles Stake—where Judge Basden had previously served as Stake President.
When addressing possible outcomes from a formal CPS or police inquiry, the judge noted, “I don’t think that they’re going to generate anything that’s helpful…” His framing presented resistance to scrutiny as mutually beneficial, though the courtroom dynamics suggested otherwise—particularly given his own institutional ties to the family involved.