Gina Bloom v. Snohomish County CPS: Alleged GAL Misconduct & Judicial Bias
Introduction
Father’s Advocacy Network exists to expose systemic patterns that jeopardize kids and parents. The Gina Bloom lawsuit against Snohomish County, Judge Paul W. Thompson, Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Brian Parker, and Child Protective Services (CPS) shines a spotlight on alleged racial and socioeconomic bias inside Washington family courts. While every defendant denies wrongdoing, Bloom’s filings raise urgent questions about GAL accountability and the safeguards that are—or are not—protecting families statewide.
Key Facts at a Glance
Plaintiff: Gina Bloom, a Romanian-American mother who previously obtained a protection order against her ex-husband.
Defendants: State of Washington, Snohomish County, Snohomish County Superior Court, Judge Paul W. Thompson, Court Commissioner Jacalyn Brudvik, Judge Jennifer Langbehn, and GAL Brian Parker.
Core Allegations (all unproven):
GAL Parker allegedly falsified safety-visit logs and misrepresented domestic-violence evidence.
Judicial officers allegedly relied on these reports “at face value,” then barred Bloom from filing further CPS reports—an order later overturned on First-Amendment grounds.
CPS staff allegedly retaliated after Bloom complained.
Current Status (6 June 2025): Most constitutional claims dismissed on immunity grounds; Bloom’s narrowed Monell claim—asserting Snohomish County failed to train or supervise GALs—remains under review.
Detailed Timeline
How Washington’s GAL System Works—And Where It Breaks
Minimal Training Requirements
Washington allows private individuals to qualify as Title 26 GALs after a single four-day certification course; no mental-health degree is required. Source: courts.wa.gov
Conflict-of-Interest Concerns
GALs are independent contractors paid by the parties. Critics argue that repeat referrals from certain attorneys can create subtle financial incentives to produce parent-favoring reports.
Complaint and Discipline Data (2023)
69 grievances opened against Washington guardians.
46 resolved the same year—47 % were dismissed after a court decision.
0 decertifications recorded.
65 % of grievances were filed by family members; only 3 % resulted in any formal sanction. Source: courts.wa.gov
Take-away: Even when misconduct is alleged, Washington’s oversight regime rarely imposes meaningful penalties—leaving parents to litigate costly appeals or, like Bloom, resort to federal court.
National Perspective
A U.S. Department of Justice–funded study of 2,000+ custody opinions found that when mothers allege abuse, they lose custody roughly one-quarter of the time; fathers’ cross-claims of “parental alienation” nearly double that loss rate. Source: ojp.gov
The HHS Office of Inspector General has likewise warned that the federal government does not adequately verify state compliance with CAPTA’s GAL-training mandate—leaving oversight “largely to self-certification.” Source: oig.hhs.gov
CPS Retaliation: When Parents Who Speak Up Become Targets
For many parents navigating Child Protective Services (CPS) investigations, remaining silent feels safer than speaking out. But when a parent tries to correct false accusations, provide clarifying evidence, or push back against biased reports, the system they hoped would protect their family can turn against them.
CPS retaliation is a real and well-documented phenomenon. Across the country—and as alleged in Gina Bloom’s case—parents who raise concerns about unfair treatment often find themselves under even greater scrutiny.
How CPS Retaliation Against Parents Happens
When parents advocate for themselves or expose errors in CPS’s handling of their case, the response can be swift and damaging:
Escalation of Allegations: Instead of re-evaluating the original claim, CPS may broaden the investigation, adding new accusations like “failure to protect” or “emotional neglect,” making it harder for the parent to clear their name.
Threats of Removal for ‘Non-Cooperation’: Parents who refuse to admit to false allegations—even under pressure—can be deemed “uncooperative,” which itself can be used as grounds to remove a child.
Suppression of Evidence: Some parents report that exculpatory evidence they provide—such as medical records, school reports, or witness statements—goes ignored or omitted from case files.
Punitive Investigations: Retaliation can include reopening closed cases, launching new investigations based on thin or unverified complaints, or extending supervision indefinitely.
Professional Retaliation: Parents who are teachers, nurses, or public employees have reported being referred to licensing boards or employers under the pretext of “ongoing child welfare concerns,” damaging their careers and reputations.
Bottom Line: Speaking up is constitutionally protected, but in practice, parents who exercise this right in the child welfare system often face intensified retaliation rather than fair reconsideration.
Statistics Highlight the Scope of the Problem
Over 25% of mandatory reporters surveyed nationally said they experienced retaliation after cooperating with or questioning a CPS investigation. (National Child Welfare Workforce Institute)
Parents who attempt to contest CPS findings are twice as likely to have cases prolonged beyond six months compared to those who do not object. (Family Defense Center Study, 2022)
In a study of wrongful child removals, 43% of families reported that their attempts to defend themselves “directly worsened” their standing with CPS. (Parental Rights Foundation)
Why Retaliation Happens
Institutional Pressure: CPS workers often operate under quotas and performance metrics that encourage case closure or removal rather than error correction.
Lack of Oversight: Unlike in criminal proceedings, CPS investigations are administrative, meaning workers have broad discretion and limited judicial oversight until a removal is actually contested in court.
Qualified Immunity: CPS workers are shielded from personal liability unless a parent can prove clear constitutional violations—a legal bar so high that very few retaliation claims ever succeed in court.
Culture of Silence: Many parents are afraid to speak publicly about retaliation for fear of further retaliation or because CPS proceedings are confidential by law.
The Impact on Families
Retaliatory tactics traumatize not just the parents but also the children they aim to protect. Children caught in prolonged or punitive investigations face:
Increased anxiety and mistrust of authority figures
School disruption and developmental setbacks
Greater risk of placement in foster care, which statistically correlates with worse long-term outcomes than remaining in a flawed home environment
Real lives are impacted. CPS’s retaliatory practices can turn a misguided investigation into a full-scale family separation—often without legitimate cause.
The Deeper Systemic Risks of Guardian ad Litem Power
1. Fabrication & Selective Evidence
GALs can—and sometimes allegedly do—“fill in the blanks” by quoting unnamed sources, summarizing therapy notes, or applying discredited theories such as Parental Alienation Syndrome. Because GAL reports are often treated as expert testimony, judges may accept those narratives without live cross-examination, amplifying any errors. Source: bushtaylor.com
2. Quasi-Judicial Immunity
Even if a GAL knowingly files a false report, parents face steep legal hurdles: most GALs enjoy quasi-judicial immunity, meaning civil suits are routinely tossed unless malice or fraud is proven to a high standard.
3. Pay-to-Play Dynamics
Hourly GAL fees in Washington frequently exceed $200 and run into five figures. A low-income parent who cannot keep pace with retainers may receive fewer “observation hours,” limiting the GAL’s exposure to their side of the story.
4. Racial & Socioeconomic Bias
Empirical research shows that courts disproportionately question abuse claims brought by mothers of color or those who rely on public assistance—groups often portrayed as “unstable” or “alienating.” Bloom’s filings allege just such a dynamic.
5. Hidden Delays & Ballooning Costs
Because GAL recommendations can trigger fresh psychological evaluations, parenting classes, or supervised visitation, contested cases can drag on for 18–36 months longer than uncontested matters, piling up legal bills and prolonging children’s uncertainty.
6. Child-Welfare “Blind Spots”
A GAL’s snapshot view may overlook subtle trauma symptoms. Studies of maltreatment-related brain changes find that every year of protracted litigation can equate to six months of developmental delay for some children. (Child Maltreatment 2020 report). Source: acf.gov
7. Lack of Independent Audit Trails
Washington does not require mandatory audio-video recording of child interviews. Without a verbatim record, parents challenging inaccuracies must rely on memory and inference—an uphill evidentiary battle.
Alleged Biases in the Bloom Case
Bloom’s filings contend that:
Racial Bias: CPS allegedly discounted injuries reported by a Romanian immigrant mother while favoring the narrative of a higher-earning U.S.-born father.
Domestic-Violence Blind Spots: Despite a prior finding of abuse, the court allegedly adopted GAL-framed alienation theories to justify switching custody.
These patterns mirror national research showing protective parents—particularly women of color—face skepticism when alleging abuse, a dynamic intensified when GAL or “parenting-evaluator” language reframes the dispute as “high-conflict” rather than safety-driven.
Current Legal Landscape
Federal Court: Judge Rothstein will decide whether Snohomish County’s GAL-oversight failures amount to an unconstitutional policy. If dismissed, Bloom’s federal path ends.
State Court: Bloom has a parallel fraud-on-the-court suit against GAL Brian Parker in Clallam County; discovery there could unearth documents relevant to policy reform.
Policy Momentum: Washington legislators have yet to advance comprehensive GAL-reform bills, but the 2023 grievance spike and Bloom litigation could spur renewed hearings in 2026.
Why This Matters to Fathers, Mothers, and Kids Alike
Policy Solutions We Support
Independent Statewide Review Board for GAL reports—modeled on medical‐peer review—to audit a random sample of cases each year.
Mandatory Audio-Video Recording of all child interviews and parent observations to curb factual disputes.
Sliding-Scale Public Funding so parents aren’t forced to “out-bid” one another for positive GAL time.
Annual Public Report Cards on each GAL’s grievance history, similar to attorney-discipline dashboards.
How You Can Help
Share Your Story: If you believe a GAL report misrepresented your family, submit an anonymized summary through our secure portal.
Contact Lawmakers: Urge Washington legislators to schedule hearings on GAL standards and oversight.
Support Our Work: Donations enable us to analyze court records, provide pro-se toolkits, and advocate for transparent reforms.
Together we can build a system where all parents—fathers and mothers—receive unbiased, evidence-based evaluations and where children’s genuine best interests override financial or political incentives.
Source List
Cascade PBS / InvestigateWest, “WA mother’s lawsuit spotlights bias in child advocate services,” 21 May 2025.
Certified Professional Guardianship & Conservatorship Board, 2023 Annual Report (grievance data pp. 14–16). courts.wa.gov
Joan S. Meier, “U.S. Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation & Abuse Allegations,” Journal of Social Welfare Law 42(1): 92–105 (2020). ojp.gov
HHS Office of Inspector General, Work-Plan Item “ACF Oversight of Guardian ad Litem Requirements and Reporting,” Oct 2020. oig.hhs.gov
Child Maltreatment 2020 Report (U.S. Administration for Children & Families). acf.gov
All claims described above remain allegations unless and until proven in court. Father’s Advocacy Network strives for factual accuracy and welcomes documented corrections.
