A local judge appointed a new court commissioner to the Clallam County Superior Court in early January 2025, granting the appointee broad judicial authority. The appointment was made by the presiding judge of the court. In Washington state, these positions are not elected; commissioners serve at the discretion of the appointing judge and lack direct accountability to voters despite their significant influence.
The new commissioner now oversees a wide range of legal matters, including most civil protection order hearings, family law disputes, and juvenile court cases. His responsibilities also extend to issuing arrest warrants, conducting initial criminal hearings, and ruling on the first orders in the majority of county eviction proceedings.
Recent scrutiny has focused on the commissioner’s fitness for the role, raising questions about the integrity of the local judicial system. An investigation by the *Real Olympic Herald* into complaints regarding the commissioner’s behavior suggests that allegations of misconduct reach beyond the courtroom into the surrounding community.
The inquiry highlights a notable contradiction: the official tasked with adjudicating civil protection orders is himself facing stalking accusations and has a prior arrest for first-degree perjury. The perjury arrest occurred in Snohomish County, where the commissioner was charged with lying under oath during a custody dispute.
A source who previously appeared before the commissioner described a pattern of stalking behavior. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the individual alleged that the commissioner sought them out at their workplace in Port Angeles on several occasions.
The commissioner’s current role includes presiding over the civil protection docket, which encompasses domestic violence, anti-harassment, and stalking protection hearings. Before these local allegations emerged, the commissioner was the subject of a criminal investigation by the Everett Police Department for first-degree perjury, a Class B felony.
The investigation originated from testimony the commissioner provided while serving as a guardian ad litem in a Snohomish County custody case. During a trial in May 2022, the commissioner testified that a mother in the case had never asked him to visit her home to interview the children. He stated on the record that no such request had been made prior to that date.
Detective work contradicted this testimony. Investigators uncovered an email sent by the mother to the commissioner on April 27, 2021, in which she explicitly asked if he could come to her house. When questioned by a detective more than a year after the incident, the commissioner claimed he did not recall the email, citing the high volume of correspondence he received. The detective found the evidence sufficient to refer the matter to the Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney.
Clallam County Superior Court records indicate that a local law enforcement officer recommended criminal charges against the individual currently serving as the county’s Family Court Commissioner. The officer, who concluded an investigation into alleged falsehoods, initially suggested a count of Perjury in the First Degree. Subsequent police filings revised the charge to “Making a False or Misleading Statement to a Public Servant.” The central finding is that a sworn statement made by the commissioner during a family law proceeding was deemed to be untruthful by the investigating officer.
This situation places the commissioner in a position where they are tasked with evaluating the credibility of witnesses in domestic violence matters, despite being referred for prosecution for similar conduct. Additionally, the same official is currently navigating allegations of stalking while presiding over cases that require assessing the trustworthiness of victims who claim to be stalked.
Irregularities in the Hiring Process
The appointment of the commissioner was characterized by rapid execution and the bypassing of standard administrative protocols. Internal correspondence shows that the presiding judge, who served in that role from January 2020 through December 2025, actively instructed staff to waive typical employment safeguards.
On November 1, 2024, the Superior Court Administrator drafted the official letter of hire. In a note to human resources, the administrator specified that the standard one-year probationary period was omitted based on direction from the judges. This deviation granted the new hire immediate job security usually reserved for employees who have successfully completed a thorough evaluation period.
The court’s General Rule 29(f)(5)(c) established a direct reporting line from the court administrator to the presiding judge, who also served as the designated hiring manager for the position. As presiding judge, the official was responsible for overseeing court operations, recommending administrative policies, and allocating resources to ensure fair and efficient dispute resolution.
Missing Documentation and Premature Approval
The hiring procedure was also notable for a lack of essential paperwork. An HR specialist repeatedly noted that mandatory interview notes for the commissioner role were absent from the county’s records system. When asked to provide these documents, the court administrator stated that no notes existed. No record indicates that such notes were ever generated or produced, leaving the assessment of the candidate’s qualifications undocumented.
Concerns regarding the candidate emerged before the final clearance was granted. On October 8, 2024, approximately one month before the background check was formally concluded, the presiding judge acknowledged a “late breaking” issue in an email to the county’s risk manager. The judge noted that while some raised concerns might fall outside the typical scope of a background investigation, the final determination was not solely the court’s responsibility.
Rather than delaying the process to investigate these new flags, the presiding judge urged HR for a tentative completion date. The judge emphasized that the candidate was already terminating his law practice and securing housing in reliance on the court’s conditional offer. The presiding judge verbally authorized the move to formalize the hire on October 31, 2024, one week before Risk Management officially confirmed the background investigation was complete on November 6.
Clallam County family court Commissioner Brian Parker may lack the specialized education typically expected of officials handling sensitive domestic disputes, according to earlier reporting and recent administrative records. Professional bodies, including the American Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, recommend that family court officers possess a therapeutic temperament and specific training in psychology, domestic violence, and sexual abuse.
Prior to his appointment, Parker testified in a Snohomish County proceeding that he had no formal training in psychology. When the court administration was asked to verify these qualifications through a records request, they confirmed that no documents existed regarding Parker’s training in domestic violence or sexual abuse. The court stated it had no responsive records to provide.
This gap in specialized education appears to be a broader issue within the Clallam County Superior Court, potentially linked to the leadership of the former Presiding Judge. The former presiding judge, who served as the hiring manager for Parker, also reportedly did not receive training in handling complaints related to domestic violence, sexual abuse, or the Department of Social and Health Services. In December, the former presiding judge made public remarks suggesting that law enforcement involvement can worsen situations when interviewing child victims of alleged abuse.
The appointment of Parker has raised concerns about the safety of the local community, particularly regarding the court’s effectiveness in responding to domestic violence cases. Critics argue that the combination of missing specialized training and the former presiding judge’s stance on law enforcement has affected how the court manages vulnerable families. Furthermore, Parker’s appointment follows allegations that he failed a basic test of integrity by telling the truth under oath.
Because commissioners are appointed rather than elected, they do not appear on the general ballot, meaning citizens cannot vote them out of office. This structural position leaves the public with limited direct recourse, as commissioners are primarily accountable to the judges who appointed them.
However, new leadership may offer a path forward. Judge Simon Barnhart, who took over as Presiding Judge earlier this month, holds the authority to remove Commissioner Parker from the bench. As the official responsible for court administration and the supervision of commissioners, Barnhart now faces a decision regarding Parker’s continued service, particularly in light of documented allegations involving stalking and perjury.
In the long term, the state legislature could address this accountability gap by changing the statutes that govern court commissioners. Proposed legislative reforms could eliminate the appointed commissioner role entirely, replacing it with an election process similar to that used for selecting judges.
Clallam County residents currently rely on a judicial officer who was previously taken into custody for providing false testimony while under oath, according to earlier reporting. This individual holds the authority to determine credibility in the county’s most delicate legal disputes. Proponents of reform argue that both the reliability of the judicial system and the safety of the local community require a different approach.
The family court commissioner in question was first named to that role by Governor Jay Inslee in 2008. That appointment occurred shortly after the official lost a primary election in August 2007, where they secured 22.98% of the vote. A decade later, in 2018, Governor Inslee elevated the official to the position of Superior Court Judge following the retirement of Judge Christopher Melly.
Since the initial appointment by the governor, the judge has never faced an opponent in a contested election. In every subsequent vote, the position was unopposed. However, local voters retain the power to alter this dynamic by choosing to remove the judge from office if they so decide.
The Superior Court did not reply to several email inquiries seeking comment on the matter.