Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

Division III: De Facto Parentage Not Blocked by Two Living Parents

In re Parentage of J.B.R.

Washington allowed de facto parentage in 2005, meaning someone who isn’t an actual parent biologically, but was really a parent to the child. Here, the de facto parent had been with the mom since the kid was two. Even after the relationship ended, he kept up visitation. When the mom wanted to stop visitation, the de facto filed to be included in the parenting plan. The guardian ad litem (person assigned to watch out for the kid’s interest) agreed the de facto parent should be in the kid’s life. The only big thing here is who needs to consent to the de facto parental relationship:

A person petitioning for de facto parentage must show that (1) the natural or legal parent consented to and fostered the parent-like relationship, (2) the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household, (3) the petitioner assumed obligations ofparenthood without expectation of financial compensation, and (4) the petitioner has been in a parental role for a length oftime sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship, parental in nature. . . . 

Ms. Shows-Re's second contention also fails. The fact that lB.R. has two living biological parents does not prohibit Mr. York from petitioning for de facto parentage. In L.B., L.B. had two living, biological parents at the time ofthe petition. L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 684-85. Nevertheless, the Washington Supreme Court adopted the de facto parentage doctrine to recognize the parental role undertaken by Ms. Carvin early in L.B. 's life. Id. at 707-08. The long-absent biological father's emergence into L.B.'s life at the time of the petition did not prohibit application of the doctrine. . . . 

It is uncontested that lB.R.'s mother consented to and fostered a parent-child relationship between Mr. York and J.B.R. If Mr. York "undertook an unequivocal and committed parental role with the consent of all existing parents but does not have a statutorily protected relationship, justice prompts us to apply the de facto parent test. This adequately balances the rights of biological parents, children, and other parties.” B.M.H., 179 Wn.2d at 244. We distinguish M.F. and follow L.B. based principally upon the distinction that here, the noncustodial biological parent voluntarily absented himself from his child's life, thus consenting to and fostering a relationship between his biological child and the petitioning party.

J.B.R. gets to keep her daddy in her life, even if he wasn’t the sperm donor.

Subscribe in a reader