When the Form Says Mandatory But Nobody Checks: Inside King County's GAL Qualification Gap

Case Studies · By Gale McArthur · 2026-05-18 · 11 min read

Public records show a King County GAL submitted blank continuing-education sections year after year — certified under penalty of perjury and approved through a four-layer review. A 24-year training gap, no verification, and a system that calls a form 'mandatory' while enforcement is optional.

By Gale McArthur | GaleRegistry.com | May 18, 2026

In King County, Washington, families going through custody disputes are told to trust the system. A Guardian ad Litem will be appointed from an official court registry. That registry, they are assured, contains only qualified professionals — vetted, trained, and current on the laws that govern their work.

That assurance is built on a form. A seven-page renewal application that every GAL must complete annually. The form states in bold: "This application is mandatory, and all questions must be answered." On the final page, the applicant signs a sworn certification — under penalty of perjury — that the application is "complete and accurate" and that they are "fully qualified to be appointed in the requested capacity for cases in King County, Washington."

Section III of that form has seven lines for continuing education. Title of training. Completion date. County or sponsor. A checkbox confirming the completion certificate is attached.

Seven lines. Seven opportunities to demonstrate that the person making life-altering recommendations about your children has kept up with the law.

What happens when all seven lines are blank?

Nothing, apparently.

What the Records Show

Through a series of public records requests filed between February and April 2026, I obtained the GAL renewal applications of Matthew Jolly, a King County attorney who has served on the Title 26 Family Law GAL registry and conducted parenting evaluations in domestic violence cases — including mine.

I have now reviewed his applications from 2022, 2024, and 2025. Every single continuing education line on every single application is blank. No training title. No date. No sponsor. No completion certificate. The only training Mr. Jolly has ever documented is a 32-hour initial course completed in January and March of 2002 through the King County Bar Association.

The same certificate — dated 2002 — is attached to every application he has filed. Nothing else.

He signed each one under penalty of perjury, certifying the application was complete and that he was fully qualified.

Twenty-Four Years Without a Training Update

To put this in perspective, here is a partial list of what has changed in Washington family law and domestic violence practice since Mr. Jolly's last documented training in 2002:

| Year | Reform | |---|---| | 2007 | Major reforms to protection order statutes | | 2011 | GAL registry reforms requiring annual background updates | | 2013 | DSM-5 replaced DSM-IV — the diagnostic manual used in every mental health evaluation referenced in family court | | 2017 | "Abusive use of conflict" added to Washington's parenting plan statute | | 2020 | Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act and significant RCW updates | | 2021 | Complete overhaul of the protection order system (Chapter 7.105 RCW) | | 2022 | Coercive control explicitly added to Washington's DV definition (HB 1901, RCW 7.105.010) | | 2025 | ESHB 1620 — major parenting plan reform establishing trauma-informed resolution standards |

Mr. Jolly's documented training predates all of it. Every statute. Every diagnostic framework. Every legislative recognition that coercive control is a form of domestic violence. All of it came after his last verified training.

And yet he has been evaluating families in DV cases — recommending custody arrangements, assessing allegations of abuse, testifying in court as an expert — for over two decades on the strength of a certificate from 2002.

The County Says Training Isn't Required. Their Own Form Disagrees.

When I pressed King County on the blank CE fields, I received a written response on March 24, 2026 from Ronda Bliey, Public Access Specialist for King County Superior Court Administration:

> Continuing education is "not required to remain on the GAL registry."

But the County's own renewal application form tells a different story. Section III is labeled "TRAINING" and begins: "I am registered for or have attended the following trainings approved by the King County Superior Court that are required for all renewal applicants." It provides seven numbered lines for training entries. It requires completion certificates. And at the bottom of the application, the applicant certifies under penalty of perjury that every question has been answered and the application is complete.

So which is it? Is training required — as the form states — or is it not required — as the County told me in writing?

The answer appears to be that the form requires it, but nobody verifies it. The form is mandatory. The enforcement is optional.

A Review Process That Doesn't Review

On March 30, 2026, Court Operations Director Rachael DelVillar described the County's multi-step application review process to me in writing:

1. Applications are received by the Ex Parte Department 2. The Ex Parte Supervisor reviews for completeness 3. The Court Operations Director reviews and conducts a WSBA discipline check 4. For Title 26 GALs: the Family Law Director and Chief UFC Judge approve

Four layers of review. A completeness check at step two. A director-level review at step three. Judicial approval at step four.

And yet applications with seven blank mandatory fields — submitted year after year — passed through every layer without a single flag.

Either the review process DelVillar described does not exist in practice, or it exists but does not include actually reading the applications.

Three weeks later, Bliey described a different process entirely to another citizen, Tina Cooper — naming different reviewers, different approval authorities, and different procedural steps. The County cannot even give a consistent answer about who reviews these applications, let alone demonstrate that any review occurred.

The "Since 2002" Claim No One Can Verify

On March 17, 2026, after I discovered that Mr. Jolly was not on the published GAL registry, Bliey wrote to me:

> "Mr. Jolly's GAL status been updated to confirm he has been on the registry since 2002 as he states."

Two words stand out: "as he states."

The County confirmed 24 years of continuous registry status based on Mr. Jolly's own claim. I have filed public records requests for his renewal applications from 2002 to present. The earliest application anyone has received is from 2022. No applications from 2002 through 2021 have been produced to any requestor. That is a 20-year gap with zero documentation.

I have asked the County directly: what records did you rely on to confirm his status from 2002 to 2021? As of this writing, I have received no answer.

I have also emailed Mr. Jolly directly, multiple times, asking him to provide documentation of any domestic violence training updates or training on HB 1620. He has not responded.

Who Got What — And Who Didn't

There is another layer to this. I requested all of Mr. Jolly's renewal applications from 2002 to present under PRR-26-1342, clarified in writing on March 18, 2026. I received only the 2024 and 2025 applications.

A separate citizen, Tina Cooper, filed her own records request. She received the 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 applications — more years than I received, despite my request having a broader scope.

Ms. Cooper forwarded the 2022 application to me. I have never received the 2023 application from any source. I asked for 2002 to present. I got two years. Another citizen got four years. Nobody has seen anything before 2022.

What This Means for Families

The GAL registry exists for one reason: to protect families. When a judge appoints a GAL from the registry, the implicit promise to both parties is that this person has been vetted. That their qualifications have been verified. That they are current on the law.

Parents in King County family court are given approximately three judicial days to research and object to a GAL appointment. Three days to verify the qualifications of someone who will interview your children, assess your fitness as a parent, and make recommendations that a judge may adopt wholesale.

Those three days are supposed to be a formality — because the registry is supposed to have already done the work. The registry is the consumer protection mechanism. It is the quality assurance.

But what does it actually assure?

In Mr. Jolly's case, the registry assured that an attorney with a 2002 training certificate could submit blank applications year after year, certify himself as fully qualified under penalty of perjury, and be approved through a "multi-step completeness review" that apparently does not include reading the application.

If you are a parent in King County facing a GAL appointment:

1. Ask for the GAL's renewal application. It is public information — the form says so at the top. Look at Section III. Are the training lines filled in? Are there completion certificates? Is there anything beyond initial training from decades ago? 2. Ask what continuing education the GAL has completed. Not what the County requires — what they have actually done. If the answer is silence, that tells you something. 3. Document everything. File your own records request if needed. The GAL registry is an administrative record subject to GR 31.1. 4. Do not assume the registry means qualified. It may only mean the person submitted an application and no one looked at it closely.

Where Things Stand Now

As of May 2026, the following are active:

• WSBA Investigation (ODC File No. 26-00090): My grievance against Mr. Jolly was escalated to formal review by a Review Committee of the Disciplinary Board in March 2026. A second family has submitted a supplemental complaint documenting the same pattern in their case. The review is ongoing.
• King County Tort Claim (No. 82622): Filed April 29, 2026. The claim addresses the County's failure to verify GAL qualifications, the retroactive modification of the registry, and the incomplete production of records.
• Outstanding Public Records Requests: I am still waiting for the 2023 application, applications from 2002–2021 (or confirmation they don't exist), historical registry lists, and a direct yes-or-no answer on whether Mr. Jolly was on the registry when he was appointed to my case and when he testified.
• Legislative Engagement: I am working with members of the King County Council and state legislators on GAL oversight reform, including mandatory continuing education verification and public posting of training records.

This is not about one evaluator. It is about a system that puts a form in front of families and calls it accountability — while no one behind the counter is reading what's on it.

Verify Before You Trust

👉 Look up your GAL in the eRegistry — independent verification of King County GAL compliance.

👉 Read: The Paper Trail of a $300/hr Oversight — how the "staffing challenge" defense lets unverified GALs stay on the list.

👉 Read: What a Real GAL Renewal Application Reveals — line-by-line analysis of the 2025 form.

👉 File a Grievance — if your GAL's qualifications don't match the registry's promise.