Petitioner urges Washington court to grant discretionary review, cites lack of jurisdiction and improper service

Dakota Richardson, the petitioner, asked the Washington court on March 7 to grant discretionary review of custody orders entered Sept. 30, arguing the superior court had no jurisdiction, failed to resolve disputed service-of-process evidence and issued emergency ex parte relief without required notice.

Richardson told the court the case “is not about the underlying family law allegations” but about whether “the superior court could rely on threshold procedural rulings made on a disputed record and then deny reconsideration without fairly addressing the evidence and the defects that were preserved.” He urged review on four grounds: jurisdiction, service, lack of notice for an ex parte writ and flaws in ex parte procedure.

Why it matters: Richardson said the contested orders separated him from his son, Ezekiel, and that lost parent-child contact is irreparable. “Lost parent child contact is irreparable by definition,” Richardson said, arguing a later appeal could not restore the time and relationship he lost.

On jurisdiction, Richardson told the court Washington entered custody-affecting orders on Sept. 30 before Idaho had declined or relinquished jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, citing RCW provisions and arguing that Idaho’s later action could not retroactively authorize the earlier Washington orders. He said that defect alone “renders the September 30 orders void.”

On service, Richardson said timestamp receipts and a sworn declaration from store employee Sean McCullough contradicted the process server’s account and that he repeatedly requested a factual hearing to test that evidence, which was never held. “I wasn’t properly served,” Richardson said, adding he had raised the service defect at the first hearing, on revision and on reconsideration and never consented to jurisdiction.

Respondent’s counsel (name not stated) acknowledged the UCCJEA argument is commonly raised in parallel-state litigation but said the record shows Idaho indicated Washington would be the proper forum. Counsel focused on personal service, saying the trial record included affidavits showing service and arguing Richardson’s prior counsel did not preserve the service defense at the trial level. Counsel said the paperwork “indicates that it was a waiver of service” and that, if the court found no valid service, “the remedy would be dismissal and we just start all over in Washington.”

Counsel also discussed routine family-law practice and pattern forms used in Washington, saying some procedural defenses can be waived and that the transcript reflects decisions made by Richardson’s prior counsel.

The judge queried what practical remedy a remand would produce if Idaho later declined jurisdiction, exploring whether remanding would change the forum given Idaho’s subsequent actions. Richardson said that, had the process been handled correctly, his son could have remained in Idaho and that he would prefer a hearing in Pierce County to feel confident about a fair proceeding.

The court took no ruling at the hearing. After oral arguments and brief rebuttal, the judge recessed the court; the motion for discretionary review remains pending.

Authorities and procedural references cited in court included the UCCJEA and RCW citations read in argument, local rule KCLCR 77, civil rules cited by counsel (including CR 6(d) and Civil Rule 65(b)) and appellate-procedure citations referenced by petitioner. The hearing record shows disputed factual evidence about service, a challenged ex parte writ dated Oct. 2 (alleged 11 minutes of notice), and petitioner’s repeated requests for an evidentiary hearing that the petitioner says were never granted.

Next steps: The court did not issue a decision on the motion during the session; the motion for discretionary review remains under consideration.