RE: Grievance

       GAL Charles W. Stevenson

       Misconduct in case # XXXXXXXX



To whom it may concern;


I was the minor addressed in civil case #XXXXXXXX   I am now legally considered an adult and I wish to file a grievance against Mr. Charles Stevenson.

The case which was focused on me was brought before the Court by my mother on my behalf.  Charles W. Stevenson was appointed as a Guardian ad litem to interview me and be the conduit from my voice to the Court.  I have read the report Mr. Stevenson wrote on my behalf and am appalled by his misconduct. The only factual information that can be derived from his report is that he abandoned all professional ethics and stomped on his oath as an officer of the court bringing his ability to perform the duties of a GAL or a CASA into question. He purposefully misled, misrepresented, deceived, omitted facts, and fabricated statements so numerous and outrageous that his actions have damaged mine and my family’s lives and warrants sanctions.


KCLGALR 7 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES (a) Submitting a Grievance. The grievance will be entertained only if raised by or on behalf of a party named in the case; I am now an adult and the minor named in the case.


KCLGALR 7 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES: Grievances Not Concerning an Ongoing Case. (A) Scope. The complaint shall be directed to the Court Administrator for Title 11 and Title 26 grievances. The complaint shall be directed to the Director of Juvenile Court for complaints regarding CASA’s; This matter is directed to the Superior Court Administrator and should be forwarded to the GAL Committee under the jurisdiction of Superior Court as the matter was a civil case heard by Superior Court and Charles Stevenson was appointed pursuant to Title 26 proceedings. 


This grievance is not directed to Juvenile Court as CASA workers are appointed in matters concerning juvenile delinquency, CASA are appointed advocates for abused or neglected children in order to provide children with a safe and healthy environment in permanent homes. As so, the Juvenile Court (CASA) criteria do not align with the civil proceedings nor the role of the Guardian ad litem in this matter. At no time was this civil matter considered within the scope, consideration or jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. It also would be a violation to the privacy rights of individuals involved in the litigation by providing private personal information about them to the juvenile court and its employees who would not otherwise be privy.


While not fully comprehensive, below are some examples of Mr. Stevenson’s violations and misconduct:


  • Mr. Stevenson failed to provide all documents and records he used to compile his report.


We know this is true because his report provides details of calls for assist my mother made to law enforcement between the years of 2001 and 2003.  Mr. Stevenson used those 15 year old records to compose his report. However, he misled the court by claiming that my mother made statements found in the old reports directly to him. She did not; a fact that is verified by an audio recording of the interview in which he claims she made those statements to him.  When the file used to compile his report was requested, Stevenson failed to provide the 15 year old police reports he drew those statements from which were actually statements made by police in their reports, not necessarily made by my mother.  A purposeful misrepresentation and omission intended to cover up his  falsification of facts by hiding the source of information from the Court. An officer of the court claiming under oath in a sworn statement that someone behaved in ways and told you things they didn't; is Perjury. 


  • Mr. Stevenson failed to provide time and expense logs when the complete file was requested.

To date, no time or expenses have been accounted for.


  • Mr. Stevenson failed to maintain objectivity and avoid apparent conflict of interest- showing Bias.


Evidenced by the fact that he requested all law enforcement activity for the address of petitioner for the years 2000 to current date but didn't bother to request the same records for the address of the respondent.


Mr. Stevenson also failed to request law enforcement records for the address of my grandparents which is where he knew I spent most of my time while I was supposed to be with my father, the respondent. My father had little time for me and usually dumped me at his parents’ home as soon as he got me from my mothers. That is where I spent most of the time I was supposed to be with him.   Records of calls to Law enforcement from that address  uncover such activities as a gun being fired inside the home during an argument among other domestic violence and assault calls. Let me be clear that my experience in that home was that arguments and violence were common.  Law enforcement records also show that was not the only time a  person from that family was involved in  gun fire exchange, there was once a shoot-out with a neighbor across a fence.


As a young child, I personally witnessed a lot of illegal drug use at the 56th street address; there was never an adult around to supervise. The adults that were around were chronic alcoholics. I know that is true because they  would return from long stays at drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers and would continue using  after their return. I believe the stints in rehab were court ordered.  It is gravely concerning that a child investigator appointed to look out for the best interest of a child would not include every location the child is known to ‘reside’ and would not inquire to every person living at that address and neglect to ask questions and seek records to draw out those types of events occurring in a child’s life. 


Presumably to satisfy the educational requirements  the registry, Stevenson discloses that from 2007- 2009 he attended Notre Dame in South Bend, IN.  Slightly misleading when you consider the following corresponding certificates of attendance:

  • 2 day workshop (1.6 CEU)   "Executive Leadership Strategies" 

  • 2 day workshop (1.6 CEU)   "Effective Leadership"

  • 2 day workshop (1.6 CEU)   "Leading teams and organizations"

The remaining 'certificates of attendance' he has been awarded are for various staff trainings offered by his current employer since his hire date of October 2012.


KCLGALR 2 (3) Non-Attorneys, Title 26. Non-attorney applicants for the Title 26 registry must have no fewer than five years’ experience in the needs of children and families involved in disputes over parenting issues, dissolution or parentage determinations, as documented in the applicant’s curriculum vitae:

 Mr. Stevenson’s 2017 application to the registry provides the following work history:

  • 14 months as Kitsap County Custody Investigator

  • 3 years Kitsap County CASA

  • 2 year as GAL Title 26


What is misleading here is the omission of dates.  Stevenson started working for Kitsap County Dispute Resolution in October 2012. That employment overlapped the 2 years he claimed as a GAL (which he was not qualified to do).  These years were simultaneous, not consecutive.  The proceedings discussed in this paper took place during 2015/16.  Using basic math, 2012 to 2015  does not meet the 5 year minimum requirement to serve as a GAL or CASA. Dispute Resolution confirmed this fact last September 2017 by issuing him a 5 year certificate.  In effect he would not have qualified for the registry until last September. The omission of information on his application is misleading, he grossly misrepresents his qualifications which alone should disqualify him from the registry.  


 Regarding application to registry :  


Stevenson provides no work related educational credentials. Application to the registry requests a curriculum vitae or CV. A CV usually includes detailed information listing dates of study, course of study, any degrees, prior work experience, dates of work-related experience- etc. Stevenson offers none of this information. His CV lists a handful of certificates of attendance to a couple of weekend workshops as formal education. Again, twisting the dates in order to mislead.  He does not list  or provide  proper credentials  of  training that  would qualify him to work with the needs of children and families involved in disputes over parenting issues, dissolution or parentage determinations. The lack of information and documentation offered to verify his background and experience is concerning because he has already shown that he is capable of perjuring himself in his duties as an officer of the court; we cannot be certain about the integrity of his resume or CV.


  • Mr. Stevenson failed to limit his duties to those ordered by the court.  


Rules prohibited the Court from speaking to me directly as a minor. Wanting to hear what I had to say, the Court appointed Mr. Stevenson to talk to me personally then report back to the Court.   The court knew that a full investigation would be too time consuming and even commented ‘on record’ that at the age of 16  the minor could conceivable be well into adulthood before a traditional GAL investigation would be concluded.

Mr. Stevenson’s appointment was because the court wanted to hear what I had to say.  He failed to report to the court what I had to say.


Mr. Stevenson did not report my reasons for fearing my father. His negligence to report my accounts of abuse suffered and the fear I was subjected to by my father was not in practice of fairness or good faith. Mr. Stevenson talked to me and he talked to some other people as well. He reported interviewing people who couldn’t have any knowledge about the circumstances at all. His report doesn't indicate that he asked the basic question of how long had it been since they'd seen me. He quoted people from my father’s side that I have not seen or heard about since I was a little kid.  He even quoted a few people that I don’t remember ever knowing at all, it is impossible they could know anything about my situation- yet their accounts were given more weight and credibility than my own.


  • Mr. Stevenson Falsified statements

  • Failed to represent the best interest of the child 


Those he spoke with that do know me, told me later that he made them feel awkward, he did not ask relevant questions and he reported they made statements they didn’t. One of my friends was completely blown away and promised me she didn’t say anything like that to Mr. Stevenson. I believe her because I know Mr. Stevenson lied about what I told him too. He lied about what my sister told him, omitting much of her testimony which was all very relevant to our circumstances- showing the true nature of my fathers abuse.  He also lied about what my mother said to him. My mother has a recording which proves he lied about things she said. I don’t need the recording to see his report was outright biased and his purpose was not to be my conduit to the Court as much as it was to dig up  dirt on my mother; which was not in my best interest. Without even knowing any of the facts, it’s easy for anyone to see that his reporting was wrought with bias against my mother.  I’m the one he was supposed to be representing. Appointed to find out from me what was going on then relay my concerns to the court. He did not do the job the Court appointed him to do.


More facts for which Mr. Stevenson failed to perform his duties and needs to answer to:

  • Failure to report child endangerment.


Failing to disclose to the court that my father would frequently force me to ride in the car with him while he drove and was so drunk he could barely walk.  It was terrifying for me as a child. I told Stevenson about times when my father was falling down drunk that I called my mother, or my sister or my grandmother to please help me. “Please come get me so I wouldn’t have to ride in the car with him like this again.” But my father would snatch the phone from my hands and hang it up. Mr. Stevenson failed to report that.


I am told that driving drunk with a child in the car is considered child endangerment.  Instead of reporting it, Mr. Stevenson downplayed my concerns and reported that I just didn’t like that my father “drives home drunk after parties”.  Completely omitting the part where I was forced to ride in the car with him and it wasn’t just parties- it was all the time. 


  • Failure to report child abuse.


Stevenson misrepresented  what I told him about my father attempting to displace my kneecap when he was angry with me.  Often, while I was buckled into a car seat when I was younger or strapped in by a seat belt he would grab my kneecap and (seemingly) attempt to dislodge it from its place.   Squeezing firmly while pushing it to one side and twisting and pulling. It felt like he was prying his fingertips into the space behind my kneecap in order to try to remove it. It was excruciating pain-yet left no marks or bruises that anyone might find. Mr. Stevenson downplayed the abuse by reporting I said my father would ‘pinch my knee hard.’  That was just one example of the kind of abuse I suffered which I shared with Mr. Stevenson but he ultimately failed to report the abuse.

Part of the interview with him, I explained why I didn’t want to go on an annual camping trip with my father.  At 16 years old, I explained the best I could. For me combining my fathers tendency to get heavily intoxicated with his violent temper and go out in the middle of nowhere with nowhere to run or hide and no reception on a cell phone to call for help, and even then not knowing where you are- was not something I looked forward to year after year. I did not want to go again.  Stevenson missed the point that it wasn’t just one camping trip, it was every camping trip. A blaringly obvious piece  is that it shows a pattern of a man denying having a problem with alcohol. A trained  investigator truly focused on what is the best interest of the child and would have addressed these concerns in this in his report. 


I want to mention that it should have been obvious to Mr. Stevenson that the people he quoted as saying my father rarely drinks or doesn’t drink much; usually were just as drunk as he was. I don’t know if they were prone to the same alcoholic blackouts my father was and they don’t remember everything that happened during those times they were drinking together. I don’t think it was very objective or in good faith to give more weight and credibility to statements about how much my father ‘doesn’t drink much’ from his drinking buddies- ignore all the witnesses who told him otherwise and insinuate that the child he is supposed to be representing and protecting is a liar. 


Now, a few years later, as I read his report I can see just how incompetent and biased he was. He did not ask questions intended to bare out facts. Adding insult to injury, he turned on me and everyone else who knew what was really going on and was supporting me through that very difficult time. Mr. Stevenson twisted and lied about everything he was told giving false credibility to my father.  He completely betrayed everyone’s trust. But ultimately, he had been appointed to be my voice- it was me he ultimately betrayed. 


Mr. Stevenson violated the following Rules:


Application to the registry KCLGALR 2 (iii) A description of the nature, status and outcome of any professional KCLGALR 2 Kitsap County Superior Court Local Rules pg. 43 complaints, investigations or disciplinary actions, lawsuits or professional liability claims, and any order for removal of the Guardian ad litem prior to completion of his or her duties;


(iv) A description of any claim or litigation that has been commenced involving allegations of improper fee charges, charges of fraud, theft or other forms of dishonesty or professional malpractice or conduct;


Stevenson violated  Rules iii and iv by:

  • Failing to disclose all grievances filed against him in his application to the registry.

  • Failing to provide a description of the nature of claims filed against him.


Mr. Stevenson disclosed only one of 2 (known) grievances filed against him. With that disclosure he failed to provide:

  • A description as to the nature of those grievances which included:

    1. Failure to report child endangerment

    2. Failure to report child abuse

    3. Misrepresentation of facts

    4. Bias

    5. Falsifying information

    6. Failure to provide complete file used to compile report

    7. Falsifying witness statements

    8. Perjury


Stevenson failed to disclose the second (Stephanie Gordon) grievance entirely. That grievance claimed misconduct including:

  1. Bias

  2. Falsifying information

  3. Misrepresentation of facts

  4. Perjury


 Regardless of the committee’s findings in either grievance it is clear he:


  • Neglected to disclose (one of two) grievance in his application to the registry.  

  • Failed to provide a brief description as to the nature of those grievances.

  • Failed to disclose the outcome of (one of two) grievances.


Lying by omission and misrepresentation of qualifications is another violation .


State and local rules provide that a Guardian ad litem/CASA may respond as provided by local rules governing motion practice. I request the committee require Mr. Stevenson should provide a written response and answer for his misconduct. I have the right to know why he determined perjury, misrepresentation and omissions of facts were in my best interest as a child.


The State of Washington requires only a preponderance of evidence showing the act of falsification of information to the Court which places the suitability of the person to act as Guardian ad litem in question; warrants permanent removal from the Guardian ad litem registry for Title 11, Title 13 and or Title 26 cases.”

“Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, “Outrageous!”” –Honorable Judge Farris


I thank you for your time and look forward to answering any questions you may have.


I swear that the information I have provided herein is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.

Signed on this 6th Day of March, 2018 in Kitsap County Washington



Please consider donating to support our work and help us afford legal advice
Thank you!

First Written Response:



Note:  This was a civil matter on the domestic calendar. They are treating it as though CPS or the State were somehow involved- They were not.


The court appointed the "custody Investigator" who  just happened to  work at the Juvenile Court. This was done with the  interest of speeding things up. The judge said, " a GAL investigation could take well into the child being an adult [too long] he's already 16 years old. Let's get a Custody Investigator to talk to him and  tell us what (Jonathan) thinks."

I posted the document Mr. Maiocco is referring to  below but it doesn't change the fact that it was a civil domestic matter heard from beginning to end in Superior Court and the Custody Investigator is bound by the same State Laws as a Guardian ad litem or an attorney or any arm of the court. 

They decided to send all grievances in closed cases to the Juvenile Department  regardless of the court of  jurisdiction. They did so because of a grievance filed against this same investigator a year earlier. A grievance so powerful they had to change the rules in order to bury it because they know exposing Mr. Stevenson is a can or worms they do not want to open. It's unfortunate that they couldn't see this coming- how many devastated and destroyed families will sue them when this dam breaks? They should've kept things clean.


   This sleight of Rules is how they are burying the corruption. Using 'non-attorneys' to gang up on citizens so no-one will be held accountable... Until now. That only works with people who are too afraid to stand up for their rights- I'm not one of those people.

I Didn't hear anything from

Michael Merringer for over a Month, another violation of Rule, so I gave him a nudge;


Apr 25

to: Michael Merringer <


Mr. Merringer,


On March 06, 2018 I  filed a grievance against Charles Stevenson.  Superior Court has jurisdiction over the matter and I submitted it according to Rules to Mr. Frank Maiocco who confirmed receipt of the grievance but informed me he had forwarded it to you on March 7, 2018. I haven’t heard from you regarding the grievance. 



I request that you process my grievance consistent with Washington State GAL Rules 7(c ) which encompasses grievances filed against custody investigators as well as GALs. I anticipate fair treatment of my grievance including the appearances-of-fairness and conflict issues. As such, I had expected acknowledgement from you that you received my grievance and have given notice to Mr. Stevenson to respond as I am entitled to a response from him:

GR7(f) Response to complaint.  The rules shall provide a procedure for any guardian ad litem who is the subject of a complaint to respond to the complaint. Additionally, I am entitled to a response within a reasonable amount of time:  (g) Complaint resolution time standards.  The rules shall include a time limit during which a complaint must be resolved. The limit shall not be longer than 60 days (May 07, 2018 as my grievance was filed on March 06) for complaints filed subsequent to the conclusion of a case.



Merringer Replied: 

Michael Merringer

May 7

to:  me, Frank Maiocco <>, Jacquelyn M. Aufderheide" <>



Good morning Mr. P,


I received your grievance along with Mr. Maiocco’ s response to you that Mr. Stevenson was appointed in case number 15-3-01083-8 as a Custody Investigator in the Juvenile Court by Order of March 28, 2016. Further, because Custody Investigators are employees of the Kitsap County Juvenile Department, the Superior Court judges adopted Kitsap County Local Family Law Rule (KCLFLR) 14 and he included that rule for your reference.


In review of KCLFLR 14, given that 15-3-01083-8 is no longer an “ongoing case” KCLFLR (2)(A) would apply. “This rule pertains to any grievance which relates to the conduct of Custody Investigators in cases which are no longer pending before the Court. Such grievances will be directed to the Juvenile Court Director and handled as a personnel matter.”


Consistent with all personnel matters, allegations of misconduct by an employee of Juvenile Court will be investigated and appropriate actions will be taken based upon our findings. Pending personnel investigations are confidential and are not disclosed. If you have further questions that I can answer, please contact me at your earliest convenience.




Michael S. Merringer, Director

Kitsap County Juvenile and Family Court Services

1338 SW Old Clifton Road

Port Orchard,  WA 98367

(360) 337-5465



 CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT - This message contains information that may be confidential per RCW 13.50.050, HIPAA-HITECH Act or 42CFR, Part2. If this message was sent to you in error, any use, disclosure, or distribution of its contents is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please contact me at the email address listed above and delete this message without printing, copying, or forwarding it. Thank you.


NOTE: He sent a copy to the County's "Employment Law Attorney"

Does he still think I'm an employee?

The Order Frank Referred to:

May 18, 2018


Mr. Merringer,


In response to my request for: "…all documentation which details policies and procedures for handling grievances filed against your employees," I received several documents regarding policies for employee/union grievance procedures. This is out of context to my request. As you are aware my request generated from correspondence with you regarding a grievance I filed against Mr. Charles Stevenson for his misconduct while appointed by Superior Court in a Title 26 proceeding where he acted as a custody investigator. 


I requested those records because my grievance does not appear to have been acknowledged or processed at all, and certainly not within the  guidelines set forth by the State. The deviation from State guidelines suggests that there may be a policy in place that is somehow different from the standard set by the State and it allows avoidance of accountability to process complaints and offers no redress. Such a policy would be of interest to the Public as would the absence of a policy that would provide an avenue for the public to issue complaints when investigators  misconduct themselves.


Your department primarily conducts business related to Title 13  proceedings which are generally  matters where citizens, usually parents, are involved with Child Protective Services and/or involve  juvenile delinquents and the State of Washington;  Mr. Stevenson violated numerous codes of conduct and verifiably perjured himself in his reporting to the Court for  a Title 26 proceeding between two private civil litigants who are not employees of your department but were in a civil domestic dispute which did not involve the State, CPS, or a juvenile delinquent.


The documents you provided in response to my request sidestep the context of my request as I am sure you are aware that I am not an employee of yours. To process my grievance as an employee complaint or personnel matter would be a violation of the policies you provided, as well as doing so would be inappropriate by any constitutional standard and not in accordance with State guidelines for processing grievances filed by private citizens. Even so, the employee complaint procedure  allows for certain respects that have not been provided to me- even if I were an employee and my grievance could be processed within the scope of the policies you provided.


The State of Washington requires that each court: shall promulgate rules that set out or refer to policies and procedures establishing and governing the filing, investigating, and adjudicating grievances made by or against guardians ad litem (child custody investigators) under Titles, 11, 13, and 26 RCW.


Mr. Stevenson was appointed by Superior Court in a Title 26 proceeding.


The documentation you provided is for complaints filed within your department by and between employees and is not responsive to my request. Please provide the policies and procedures you have established that are in accordance with those mandated by the State which address:  governing the filing, investigating, and adjudicating grievances made by or against guardian ad litem's  (child custody investigators) under Titles, 11, 13, and 26 RCW. 


Unless there are established procedures within your department which override Washington State Rules for grievance procedures, I request my grievance be processed according to the State's procedures which includes at minimum the following:


(c)  Grievant Rights.  A grievant has the following rights:


    (1)  to be advised promptly of the receipt of the grievance, and of the name, address, and office phone number of the person assigned to its investigation if such an assignment is made;


    (2)  to have a reasonable opportunity to communicate with the person assigned to the grievance, by telephone, in person, or in writing, about the substance of the grievance or its status;


    (3)  to receive a copy of any response submitted by the respondent,


For your convenience, I have attached a copy of my grievance with this request to process.   I look forward to learning about the department’s plan to investigate the points of the grievance and the outcome of the investigation.   I look forward to receiving Mr. Stevenson's response to my grievance within the time constraints allotted by the State.  If you believe you have received the grievance in error and it falls within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court where the matter originated was heard and concluded, I request that you promptly remedy that discrepancy with them.




What happened to my Right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution​ to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances?

These 'Policies" are for things like workplace harassment, being passed over for a promotion,

bad attendance...