The Washington State Supreme Court held oral arguments on January 15, 2026, to determine the fate of Judge Pro Tempore David Ruzumna, whose judicial career hangs in the balance following a controversial attempt to secure a parking discount.
I can add a personal perspective from a case I was involved in.
In my situation, Commissioner Ruzumna issued a 42-day ex parte restraining order separating a mother from her newly three-year-old child without a parenting plan in place. In family law, that kind of emergency order has enormous consequences for a child’s stability and attachment.
What concerned me most was not just the order itself, but the lack of family-law experience or grounding in the practical realities of parenting cases. When I tried to raise concerns about the legal issues with the ruling, he responded by filing a restraining order against me.
People reading about the parking incident may see it as a “stupid joke.” But for parents who appeared in front of him in family court, the issue was something much larger: judicial judgment and understanding of the law in cases involving children.
I think he should be treated the way he himself ruled as a commissioner. It wouldn’t be that hard to review his court decisions when he sat and heard cases. Was he forgiving or punishing?
I’ve heard it said that a man who cheats in little things, cheats in big things. It was forgery and an abuse of his position. To have a flippant attitude doesn’t help either. He is not above the law — he is the law.
It sounds dumb when framed as “parking,” but the concern is judgment.
In my case, he issued a 42-day ex parte restraining order separating a mother from her newly three-year-old child, with no parenting plan and no due process hearing beforehand. Under CR 65(b), ex parte orders are generally limited to 14 days for a reason — they are supposed to be temporary until the court hears both sides.
That separation caused real harm; the child later required trauma therapy after being abruptly cut off from her primary caregiver.
So while the headline sounds like “parking,” the real question is whether someone who exercises judicial power understands basic law and the consequences of their decisions for families.
I can add a personal perspective from a case I was involved in.
In my situation, Commissioner Ruzumna issued a 42-day ex parte restraining order separating a mother from her newly three-year-old child without a parenting plan in place. In family law, that kind of emergency order has enormous consequences for a child’s stability and attachment.
What concerned me most was not just the order itself, but the lack of family-law experience or grounding in the practical realities of parenting cases. When I tried to raise concerns about the legal issues with the ruling, he responded by filing a restraining order against me.
People reading about the parking incident may see it as a “stupid joke.” But for parents who appeared in front of him in family court, the issue was something much larger: judicial judgment and understanding of the law in cases involving children.
Those decisions affect families for years.
I think he should be treated the way he himself ruled as a commissioner. It wouldn’t be that hard to review his court decisions when he sat and heard cases. Was he forgiving or punishing?
I’ve heard it said that a man who cheats in little things, cheats in big things. It was forgery and an abuse of his position. To have a flippant attitude doesn’t help either. He is not above the law — he is the law.
It sounds dumb when framed as “parking,” but the concern is judgment.
In my case, he issued a 42-day ex parte restraining order separating a mother from her newly three-year-old child, with no parenting plan and no due process hearing beforehand. Under CR 65(b), ex parte orders are generally limited to 14 days for a reason — they are supposed to be temporary until the court hears both sides.
That separation caused real harm; the child later required trauma therapy after being abruptly cut off from her primary caregiver.
So while the headline sounds like “parking,” the real question is whether someone who exercises judicial power understands basic law and the consequences of their decisions for families.