Phantom Reports and 'Fatal Flaws': The Controversial Evaluator Derailing a Mother's Fight for Her Children
In a case that strikes at the heart of systemic judicial failures and the rights of domestic violence survivors, Melissa Strawn is taking her fight to the Washington State Court of Appeals.
On May 11, 2026, Strawn filed an exhaustive 83-page appellate brief seeking to overturn devastating King County Superior Court orders that stripped her of her children, erased her domestic violence protections, and weaponized her medical emergencies against her.
At the center of this legal battle is an all-too-familiar name for readers of The Olympic Herald: Dr. William Singer.
The appeal paints a troubling picture of a court system that allegedly prioritized docket management over due process, relying heavily on a heavily criticized evaluation by Dr. Singer to justify a complete inversion of a domestic violence narrative.
The Illusion of a Fair Trial
According to the appellate brief, the dispositive phase of Strawn’s dissolution trial took place in June 2025. However, Strawn was entirely absent.
Contemporaneous medical documentation filed with the court showed she was suffering from acute illnesses, including pneumonia and mononucleosis, with emergency room notes requesting that she be excused from court proceedings.
According to the brief, rather than grant a stay or a medical continuance, the King County trial judge proceeded with a one-sided trial. The court deemed Strawn’s medical absences “not credible” and labeled her emergency motions as financially motivated “delay tactics.”
With Strawn medically incapacitated and unable to cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, or authenticate her own exhibits, the court issued life-altering final orders. Her ex-husband was granted sole decision-making and custody of their children.
Strawn was also ordered to pay child support, forced to sell her home, and hit with $10,000 in attorney fees for “intransigence”—fees that were effectively deducted from the back-support owed to the state for the children’s care.
“This appeal is about something narrower and more fundamental,” Strawn’s brief argues. “Whether a court may enter life-altering final dissolution, parenting, support, property, domestic-violence-related, and fee orders after the dispositive phase of trial proceeded without one party’s meaningful participation.”
A Pattern of “Fatal Flaws” and Regulatory Violations
The foundation for this drastic shift in custody rests heavily on a behavioral assessment provided by Dr. Singer of the Northwest Evaluation Center. Court documents, appellate briefs, and previous state investigations outline a staggering list of allegations against the evaluator’s methodology.
According to the appellate brief, Dr. Singer’s assessment assigned Strawn’s ex-husband a “Level 0” threat rating, which required no domestic violence treatment.
The brief argues that a “Level 0” threat rating is entirely non-existent under the Washington Administrative Code, effectively allowing the evaluator to “recommend away” court-ordered domestic violence treatment.
This practice of minimizing the necessity for treatment has faced direct regulatory and judicial scrutiny. As we previously reported, Division I of the Court of Appeals recently overturned another King County ruling explicitly due to “significant flaws” in Dr. Singer’s assessments.
In that unpublished opinion, the appellate court found that Dr. Singer violated WAC standards by diminishing the need for domestic violence treatment based solely on a lack of police arrests or criminal charges.
State regulators have also cited Dr. Singer’s program for documentation failures. A late 2025 investigation by the Department of Social and Health Services resulted in a “founded” complaint against the evaluator.
State investigators determined that while the program could verbally articulate a rationale for recommending alternative mental health therapy instead of domestic violence intervention, that justification was completely absent from the written assessment—a failure deemed “insufficient” under state standards.
Furthermore, the appeal and state investigations highlight a pattern of allegedly ignoring or refusing victim input.
The DSHS complaint formally cited the evaluator for failing to sufficiently summarize victims’ statements from court documents.
While Strawn’s trial court noted that she “declined to respond” to Dr. Singer, her appellate brief alleges her diligent attempts over several months to provide a victim statement were repeatedly refused by the evaluator.
These issues are compounded by what the appeal characterizes as an incomplete and biased record review.
A declaration from Dr. Daniel Rybicki, cited in the brief, identifies “fatal flaws” in Dr. Singer’s assessment. According to the declaration, Dr. Singer failed to contact the victim to collect collateral data, a statewide requirement.
Moreover, Dr. Rybicki noted that Dr. Singer’s review was limited exclusively to materials provided by the ex-husband and his counsel, omitting crucial evidence such as Strawn’s DVPO petition, photographs of her injuries, 2016 police reports, and an eyewitness declaration regarding a firearm incident.
Finally, the brief raises alarming concerns over “phantom” corrective reports. Following the DSHS “founded” complaint, Dr. Singer was ordered to amend his assessment under a state-mandated Corrective Action Plan.
When Strawn’s counsel attempted to obtain this mandated report, the evaluator allegedly provided a screenshot claiming it was filed under a King County docket sub-number. According to the appeal and counsel’s sworn declaration, this sub-number is a “phantom”—it does not correspond to any visible entry on the public court docket.
Inverting the Victim Narrative
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of Strawn’s appeal is the court’s complete reversal of the domestic violence posture.
Prior to the dissolution orders, Strawn held a valid, fully adjudicated Domestic Violence Protection Order protecting her and her children from her ex-husband.
However, following the one-sided June trial, the judge used the unchallenged testimony to effectively rewrite history. The court imposed statutory restrictions against Strawn, labeling her the abuser, claiming she engaged in coercive control, and stating her claims of abuse lacked credibility.
Strawn’s brief forcefully argues that a court cannot fairly “invert the domestic-violence narrative through a final trial process in which only one side meaningfully participated.”
The Path Forward
Strawn is asking the Court of Appeals to vacate the June 2025 final orders entirely and remand the case for a new, fair trial in front of a different judicial officer.
Her appeal raises a critical question for the Washington judicial system: Does a court’s authority to manage its docket and avoid delays supersede a mother’s fundamental right to due process?
For now, Melissa Strawn and her children remain in a devastating legal limbo, awaiting a higher court to determine if justice was truly served when only one side was allowed to speak.
Excellently written, factual article, bringing to light the harm that William Singer of Northwest Evaluation Center is continuously causing not just to WA victims of domestic violence and their children, but also to the public at large. WA appellate courts, the WA Supreme Court, and the WA legislature have consistently held that domestic violence protection orders protect the public as well as the associated victims. By proceeding to a life-altering trial without an extensively medically excused, long-time protected party, and then stripping that party of their children, home, money, credibility, vehicle, and ultimately their protection and freedom, is dangerous, cruel, an unjustified. Praying that Division I of the WA Court of Appeals reverses these draconian scorched earth orders and remands for a new trial in front of an unbiased judge who has not prejudged the parties or matters, allowing the court to enter orders truly in the best interests of the children and that comply with state law.