Judge Jaime Hawk's Supreme Court Campaign Is Heavy on Endorsements. What About Her Record in Family Court?

Legislative Updates · By Gale McArthur · 2026-07-10 · 8 min read

Judge Jaime Hawk's campaign highlights more than 100 judicial endorsements. A King County family-court litigant asks voters to examine her rulings, HB 1620 and reliance on court-appointed evaluators.

Public-interest commentary by Gale McArthur

Endorsements are boarding. Record review is delayed.

Judge Jaime Hawk is running for Position 3 on the Washington Supreme Court. Her campaign website presents an impressive departure board:

More than 100 current and retired judges and justices
More than 35 labor and Democratic organizations
More than 28 state executive and legislative leaders

The website describes Hawk as a "proven judge," says she follows the law and applies it fairly, and states that she has never had a trial overturned for legal error.

That is a powerful collection of endorsements.

But an endorsement list is not a judicial-record review.

After reading the campaign site, I found extensive praise from judges, politicians and organizations. I did not find case-level analysis of Hawk's family-court rulings, responses from parents who appeared before her, or an explanation of how she has applied Washington's major 2025 family-law reforms.

Before voters upgrade any judge to the Supreme Court, someone should inspect the luggage.

First, the accurate election history

Hawk did not initially reach the Superior Court through an election. Governor Jay Inslee appointed her to the King County Superior Court in July 2022.

It would nevertheless be inaccurate to say she was "never elected." King County's 2024 candidate-filing records show Hawk as the only filed candidate for Superior Court Position 10. Voters saw her name on the ballot, but she did not face a filed opponent in that race.

That distinction matters. Accuracy is more persuasive than exaggeration.

The better question is not whether Hawk technically appeared on an election ballot. It is whether voters have received a meaningful opportunity to examine her record.

A family-court case voters should know about

I was the respondent in Jacobs v. McArthur, King County Superior Court Case No. 23-3-00875-1 SEA, a parenting-plan case assigned to Judge Hawk.

The court heard testimony from Dr. Lisa Aronson Fontes, an author and researcher known for her work involving coercive control, and Matthew Jolly, the court-appointed parenting evaluator.

After Judge Hawk delivered her oral ruling on October 31, 2025, I asked what weight she had given Dr. Fontes's testimony.

Hawk responded that Fontes had no personal knowledge of the parents or child and had not reviewed the case-specific records. She described Fontes's general testimony about domestic violence and coercive control as "helpful."

That limitation is fair to identify. Fontes was not conducting the parenting evaluation.

But the court did not explain what effect her supposedly helpful testimony had on its conclusions. It appeared in the courtroom, received the word "helpful," and then vanished from the reasoning like complimentary peanuts on Judicial Airways.

I then asked how Jolly was qualified to address trauma and mental-health-related parenting concerns.

Judge Hawk said she was familiar with him, noted that he had worked for the court as a GAL and parenting evaluator for more than 20 years, and said he had testified that he completed mandatory training. She then stated that she would not address his qualifications further.

So the apparent evidentiary boarding system looked like this:

National coercive-control expert: Helpful, but no assigned seat.
Familiar courthouse professional: Priority boarding.

That may be satire, but the transcript is not.

The registry problem discovered afterward

After trial, I requested King County's Title 26 GAL registry records.

The original 2025 registry supplied in response did not list Matthew Jolly. According to documents attached to my subsequent court filings, court administration later described the omission as an "oversight," and a revised version included his name.

My filings also state that I was unable to obtain records verifying his registry status for 2024 or documentation establishing current continuing-education compliance during the relevant period.

This does not, by itself, prove that Jolly was legally unqualified, that the later correction was improper, or that Judge Hawk knowingly relied on inaccurate information.

It does raise obvious public-interest questions:

What records did the court examine before relying on his qualifications?
Was registry status independently verified?
Was current training involving coercive control and domestic violence confirmed?
Did familiarity with a recurring court professional replace documentary verification?
When a court-appointed evaluator addresses mental-health-related parenting concerns, what professional boundary applies?

These are not personal insults. They are ordinary due-diligence questions in a system capable of changing where a child lives and how often a parent sees that child.

Why HB 1620 matters

HB 1620 became Washington law in 2025 and took effect on July 27, 2025 — before the final oral ruling in my case. It passed the Senate 32–17 and final House passage 60–37.

The law says that understanding domestic violence and child abuse is crucial when determining a child's best interests. It requires courts to make specific written findings concerning domestic-abuse factors in applicable cases.

It also states that a neutral court-appointed professional offering opinions about abuse, trauma or the behavior of victims and perpetrators must demonstrate expertise and substantial direct experience working with victims of domestic violence or child abuse — and that experience cannot be primarily forensic.

That provision makes the qualifications question more than an academic debate.

Judge Hawk acknowledged during the oral ruling that a new mandatory parenting-plan form and changes in the law had gone into effect that summer. But acknowledging that legislation exists is not the same as publicly explaining how its substantive protections were applied.

Before promoting a trial judge to the state's highest court, voters should ask:

1. How does the candidate interpret HB 1620's expertise requirement? 2. How should trial courts verify the qualifications of neutral professionals? 3. What weight should courts give general coercive-control testimony? 4. How should judges distinguish clinical opinions from parenting-evaluation recommendations? 5. What happens when registry records are incomplete or later corrected? 6. How should appellate courts respond when required findings are missing?

Endorsements are not quality control

Judge Hawk's endorsements may reflect genuine respect for her career as a public defender, civil-rights attorney and judge.

But 100 judges endorsing another judge does not tell the public what parents experienced in her courtroom.

It may tell us she is popular in the judicial lounge. It does not tell us whether anyone checked the baggage.

Washington voters deserve more than polished photographs, institutional endorsements and campaign statements asserting fairness. They deserve an examination of actual rulings, actual transcripts and the experiences of the people whose lives were affected.

A Supreme Court candidate should welcome that scrutiny.

After all, the campaign slogan is effectively that experience matters. The record is where experience leaves receipts.

Disclosure

I was a party in the case discussed in this article and disagree with portions of Judge Hawk's rulings. Related issues have been raised through court filings, appellate proceedings and administrative complaints. Those proceedings may remain unresolved.

This article represents my opinion and interpretation of court transcripts, public records, campaign materials and legislative documents. It does not allege that Judge Hawk or Matthew Jolly committed a crime. No child's name or identifying information is included.

This is independent public-interest commentary and not legal advice. This website is not affiliated with any court, candidate or government agency.