I Asked King County 15 Questions About Their GAL Registry. Seven Answers Were "Previously Provided Information."

Judicial Accountability · By Gale McArthur · 2026-05-06 · 8 min read

After 37 days, the Director of Court Operations responded to 15 statutory questions about the King County GAL registry with deflection, non-answers, and the same five words seven times.

May 6, 2026 | Gale McArthur | GALRegistry.com

Today I received a response from Rachael DelVillar, Director of Court Operations at King County Superior Court, to questions I submitted on March 30th about the GAL registry — questions about training compliance, registry integrity, and whether the evaluator in my daughter's case was even on the registry when he was appointed.

It took 37 days. And what I got back was not answers. It was a masterclass in institutional deflection.

The Dismissal

Before addressing any of my questions, Ms. DelVillar opened with this:

> "I have reviewed your proposal, and it appears that you wish to serve as a contractor or consultant with King County to implement your proposal as a pilot program. Regrettably, we are unable to partner with you currently on a pilot program as you request but wish you the best with pursuing legislation in the coming session and the appropriate funding to support such a program."

Let me be clear about what I actually asked. I asked why King County doesn't publish basic contact information for GALs — phone numbers, emails, websites — when every other county in Washington does. That's it. That is a transparency question, not a business pitch.

But instead of answering, the Director of Court Operations recharacterized a public accountability inquiry as a sales proposal and politely wished me luck.

What She Actually Admitted

Buried beneath the deflection, Ms. DelVillar's responses confirmed things that should concern every family in King County:

The evaluator in my daughter's case was not on the registry. His 2024 application materials sat unprocessed for over two years. The error was only discovered on approximately January 27, 2026 — after I filed a complaint. He was then retroactively added to the 2024 registry under what she called "Director discretion."

There are no written policies governing retroactive additions to the registry. I asked for them directly. Her answer: "Do not exist."

His 2025 application was not submitted until March 12, 2026 — after my complaint, after my public records requests, and after the registry had already been quietly modified.

No review of affected cases has been conducted. When I asked whether any review had occurred, the answer was: "Not applicable." Not "we reviewed and found no issues." Not applicable. As if the question itself doesn't deserve consideration.

"Previously Provided Information"

I asked 15 questions rooted in specific statutes — RCW 26.12.177(1), RCW 2.56.030(15), and GALR 2(d) — all of which appear to require ongoing training for GALs. These were new questions about statutory conflicts that her prior answers had never addressed.

Seven of her responses were the same five words: "Previously provided information regarding approval process."

How does a GAL credentialed in 2002 remain current with HB 1620, coercive control laws, and child safety requirements over 20+ years? Previously provided information.

How do GALs "maintain qualifications" under GALR 2(d) without continuing education? Previously provided information.

Whether current training standards were evaluated or reliance was placed solely on 2002 qualifications? Previously provided information.

That is not an answer. That is a wall.

The Question She Wouldn't Answer

I asked the simplest question in the entire exchange: Was Matthew Jolly on the registry on April 3, 2024, when he was appointed, and during July 2025, when he testified?

Her response: "Depending on when the renewal process closed — typically after the month of June — Mr. Jolly may still have been on the registry."

May. Still. Have. Been.

The Court maintains these records. This is a yes-or-no question. And the Director of Court Operations answered it with "may."

25 GALs. 2.3 Million People. $350 an Hour.

Here is what I found when I called every single GAL on King County's registry. All 25 of them. It took four hours.

Zero availability. Not one GAL had room for a new case. If you are a parent in King County who needs a GAL today, there is no one.

$300–$350 per hour. No fee cap. No billing oversight. No published rates. Neighboring counties cap GAL fees at approximately $100 per hour. King County has no cap at all.

Multiple listings have no contact information. No phone number. No email. No website. These are entries on a public registry that a family in crisis is supposed to use to find help.

At least two GALs told me they only communicate through attorneys. If you are a pro se parent — which many DV survivors are — you are shut out.

No record of current DV training. The County cannot produce documentation showing that any of these 25 GALs have current training in domestic violence, coercive control (which became law in 2022 under RCW 7.105.010), or ESHB 1620 (effective July 2025), which now requires that any professional expressing opinions on abuse demonstrate "expertise and substantial direct experience" that is "not primarily forensic in nature."

That is the system. Twenty-five people, charging $350 an hour, with no verified qualifications on domestic violence, serving a county of 2.3 million. And the Court's response to questions about it is "previously provided information."

What I Did About It

I replied to Ms. DelVillar today. I copied Melanie Kray from Councilmember Mosqueda's office, Anthony Tomashefsky at the Olympic Herald, and Kelsey Turner at InvestigateWest.

I asked three yes-or-no questions. I asked for the record to be corrected. And I told her I've filed a claim with King County Risk Management.

I am not going away. I am not a contractor looking for a deal. I am a single mother who paid $10,000 for a parenting evaluation from a man who was not on the registry, had no continuing education since 2002, and told the court there was no domestic violence because there were no police reports — in a state that changed that law three years ago.

The judge gave his testimony 100% weight. The nationally recognized DV expert who trains GALs? Zero weight.

That is what a broken system produces. And when you ask the system to explain itself, it says "previously provided information" seven times and wishes you luck with the legislature.

Gale McArthur is the founder of GALRegistry.com, an independent accountability platform for court-appointed Guardian ad Litem professionals in Washington State. She is currently pursuing a risk management claim against King County and an appeal in Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals (No. 89411-1-I).