Seeking fairness, accountability, and the safety of children.
The latest ruling on our protection order was unjustly dismissed, supposedly for failing to meet a “preponderance of the evidence” standard—even though we have video evidence showing a physical attack, and a previous judicial finding that harm did occur. This page details how bias, ex parte communications, and the strategic misuse of a restraining order conspired to prevent our legitimate protection order from being heard on its merits.
In direct violation of due process, the father was served with a surprise restraining order without any formal motion or supporting declaration explaining the need for such an order. This manipulated the legal venue—causing the father’s valid protection order to be dismissed before the court could see the full evidence of the abuse. The children’s well-being has been jeopardized, and the father has lost his employment and his children’s health insurance as a result of these wrongful court filings.
A video recording clearly shows an attack on the 7 year old son, contradicting the court’s recent conclusion that there was insufficient evidence. Notably, at a prior hearing, the same judge acknowledged that harm had taken place. Despite this acknowledgment, the new ruling ignored that finding and dismissed the father’s protection order claim.
On February 14, 2025, the child (AAS) testified under oath to a separate instance of abuse: Eric Brubaker allegedly attacked him in the bathroom, pinning his head to the ground and using his hair to wipe up urine. This corroborates the January 27, 2025 report made by AAS to the sheriff’s office after the father learned of the abuse and immediately contacted law enforcement.
Under RCW 9A.40.60, such actions that attempt to permanently keep a child from his lawful parent and forcibly eliminate the father’s protective role can be classified as a felony. The ramifications of ignoring this kind of abuse are severe and threaten the child’s safety and emotional health.
The father’s residential time with his children was deliberately interfered with, using a newly fabricated restraining order that included no findings of threat or harm. Yet it was quickly served on the father and entered into NCIC (National Crime Information Center), instantly damaging his ability to work in his field. As a direct result, the children were also left without health insurance—an outcome that benefits no one but those intent on marginalizing the father.
In a shocking example of ex parte communication, various pre-prepared templates were apparently sent to the judge outside of the father’s knowledge, pressing for immediate inclusion of the father on NCIC listings. This bypassed standard procedural safeguards meant to ensure fairness and transparency.
The restraining order itself explicitly states that there was no harm or threat of harm, raising clear questions as to why it was approved in such an expedited manner to the father’s detriment.
The father, having learned of potential video evidence from Costco, sought a valid legal process to preserve and obtain a copy for law enforcement. What followed was a systematic effort by opposing counsel (Attorney Kempner) to subvert that evidence:
This orchestrated timeline indicates a concerted effort to undermine the video evidence, preventing law enforcement and the courts from reviewing original, unaltered footage.
On May 2, 2024, the father filed a sheriff’s report regarding Eric Brubaker’s pattern of abuse towards Andrew (AAS), including a report that Andrew was subjected to 25 spankings in a single day for the “offense” of speaking to his father. Such extreme punishment was reportedly occurring daily.
Despite these documented instances of harm, intimidation, and physical aggression, the father’s attempts to protect his children through the courts have been thwarted by questionable procedural moves, ex parte communications, and misrepresentations in the official record.
We stand at a crossroads where the courts must confront these procedural missteps, rectify their impact, and prioritize child safety. We call on all concerned individuals—child advocates, legal experts, and members of the public—to shine a light on these injustices and demand that the truth be heard on its merits:
This is not merely a dispute between private parties—it is a matter of protecting vulnerable children and preserving the integrity of our judicial system. We urge anyone with knowledge of these events—or with similar experiences of procedural overreach and misrepresentations in family court—to share their story. Together, by exposing injustices and insisting on transparent judicial processes, we can demand accountability and ensure the well-being of these children.