top of page


Updated: Mar 31

Copyright © 2023 Katherine Black All Rights Reserved

Perjury’s Consequences - 13 Secrets Every Applicant Must Know

Using basic common sense, two days of conflicting testimony, and internal documentation proving DCYF witnesses were lying with every breath, applicant Kasey argued against every absurdity listed below.

An administrative court ruled against Kasey’s arguments, citing no evidence because the department couldn’t provide any.

Unless the court was biased, what’s listed below are 13 secret department policies that every applicant must know before working with DCYF. The hearing occurred in January 2022 (Docket #134684).

Applicant advice: Qualified immunity gives corrupt state employees the right to discriminate, retaliate, fabricate evidence, and commit perjury without consequences. I will provide advice throughout this section on fighting against the corruption you will face when working with DCYF and its unethical employees.

A List of Secrets

  1. Admitting what you don’t understand is discrimination.

  2. Any unintentional mistake is deception.

  3. Licensors never verify income.

  4. Licensors (and DCYF itself) keep no written documentation.

  5. Have you ever been in trouble? Don’t bother applying.

  6. The department has no policies or procedures for licensor conduct.

  7. DCYF shares your confidential information without your consent.

  8. DCYF doesn’t count cash income toward income requirements.

  9. You are your parents’ sins.

  10. Counseling is only for the mentally ill.

  11. A trap question designed to disqualify your application.

  12. Fostering is DCYF’s only priority.

  13. An administrative court must allow false statements into evidence.


1. Anything you admit not knowing or understanding about parenting, race, ethnicity, gender identity, or culture is considered discrimination and automatically fails your application.

For example, suppose you have friends on the autism spectrum. But you’re unsure if you can parent a child with autism because you don’t understand it enough and describe your confusion in your application.

According to DCYF and an administrative court, your voluntary admission automatically fails your application because misunderstandings and misconceptions are discrimination and violate WAC 110-148-1520.

Even more bewildering, DCYF mandates all applicants pass parenting education before the department fully processes their application. Caregiver Core Training from the Alliance for Child Welfare Excellence is what the department uses. That training is designed “to educate applicants and to resolve misunderstandings, misconceptions, and perceived biases.”

But wait a moment, you might ask, what if I pass the state-mandated parenting courses to educate myself about autism after writing my application? Wouldn’t that count for something?

No, it wouldn’t.

According to testimonies from Laurel Hightower and Ann Christiansen, the state-mandated education you must pass has no bearing on your application because “DCYF never follows up with (your training).”

That testimony came as news to the Alliance for Child Welfare Excellence. DCYF mandates that a coach issues a certificate proving you understand the material and possess sufficient knowledge to care for children. The department works closely with the Alliance in your training and education; DCYF also partially funds the Alliance.

After a month and a half of courses, the education corrected Kasey’s parenting, race, gender identity, and cultural misunderstandings and misconceptions to his coach’s satisfaction. She issued him a certificate of completion proving it. She even said he was a “poster child” for why DCYF mandates parenting education. She added she would “speak to [his] licensor” about his enlightenment and transformation “when contacted.”

But Laurel Hightower, Kasey’s licensor, never contacted his coach or knew that the state-mandated education did what it was designed to do. She failed to perform every aspect of her job and then lied about it.

Licensing Supervisor Ann Christiansen testified that the only way DCYF would know if the education corrected an applicant’s misunderstandings was if the applicant raised the subject with their licensor.

But in Kasey’s circumstance, Hightower never spoke to him about his application. The only consistent testimony from the department was that the first mention of Kasey’s name occurred on the afternoon of July 20, 2020. That’s when Hightower began cherry-picking and misrepresenting his application in retaliation for criticizing her poor communication and incompetence. She quoted everything Kasey admitted he was “unsure of,” “didn’t know,” or “didn’t understand” about parenting, culture, gender identity, and race. She falsified discussions based on what Kasey admitted not knowing or understanding to portray him in the worst possible manner when failing his application.

How would an applicant know if their licensor had questions if they have yet to speak to you about your application?

In that case, Christiansen testified, it’s up to the applicant to update their application.

Does the applicant have access to their application after submitting it?

No, of course not.

But even if an applicant did have access, they wouldn’t know what work, if any, their licensor had performed.

Those outlandish testimonies didn’t matter to an administrative court. Administrative Law Judge Eliza Jane Manoff agreed with the department. An applicant admitting what they didn’t know or understand about parenting, culture, gender identity, race, and ethnicity before undertaking training or education is discrimination.

Applicant advice:

  1. Never admit that you don’t know or understand something, as DCYF uses everything you admit against you.

  2. Never admit you’re unsure of parenting, culture, race, ethnicity, gender identity, disability, etc.

  3. Research it alone or ask people not associated with DCYF for advice.

  4. Fake it till you make it, as the saying goes.


2. Any mistake, misstatement, exaggeration, or error on your application — no matter how innocent, explainable, minor, or correctable — is deception. It means you knowingly provided false information to the department. Deception automatically fails your application.

Have you ever used a word with a different or similar meaning to what you intended?

That minor mistake violates WAC 110-148-1625 (1)(e). It will automatically fail your application because DCYF says any mistake, misstatement, exaggeration, or error constitutes deception.

Kasey wrote that his personal assistant duties “mimicked” those of a COO and then listed what he did on behalf of his disabled friend. However, he repeatedly emphasized and explained he had no ownership in her business and didn’t work for her company. His friend and even the state’s own witness testified and agreed on that point. Kasey said he had 77 personal assistant duties “at one point” during the busiest time of his friend’s business but usually only had one or two dozen.

During his first day’s testimony, Kasey freely admitted that 77 duties were an embellishment (exaggeration) of his usual workload. He grouped similar duties together when compiling his list. (Kasey mistakenly omitted other personal assistant duties like grocery shopping and picking up prescriptions.) When Kasey admitted embellishing his personal assistant duties when testifying, the state said his slight exaggeration, plus application omission (mistake), constituted deception.

Assistant Attorney General Kaelen Brodie contended that the only definition of embellish was lying. Therefore, when Kasey testified and said he had embellished his duties, he admitted lying to the department with his application.

After the first day’s hearing, Brodie made that ridiculous argument while filing a false emergency motion to deceive the court. Brodie intentionally misquoted Kasey’s first day’s testimony and misrepresented his application statements. Judge Manoff agreed with Brodie’s misrepresentation that deception is the only definition of embellishing. She ruled that Kasey’s voluntary admission and matching explanation were deceptive and used Brodie’s false emergency motion to justify her ruling.

Naturally, minor errors and mistakes aren’t WAC violations for DCYF personnel.

Laurel Hightower claimed she made a mistake by emailing Kasey that she would approve his home study on July 14 when she testified that she had enough information to fail his application by April. (She later admitted she didn’t decide to fail Kasey’s application until July 20.) Brodie argued she couldn’t be held responsible for her actions because everyone makes mistakes.

The court apparently agreed that “everyone” only applies to DCYF personnel.

The state can make as many (intentional) mistakes as it wants without consequences. But any mistake you make will instantly fail your application.


3. Licensors never verify income because that’s not their job.

That’s right — DCYF uses the honor system. The department only knows the information you submit with your financial worksheet. A licensor will never discuss or ask you anything about your income or finances.

In the state’s original decision, Laurel Hightower excluded nearly all of Kasey’s income to fail his application by only $547. She stated under penalty of perjury that she couldn’t verify his income. That led DCYF to declare his application failed partly due to “insufficient verifiable income.”

However, no one ever attempted to verify Kasey’s income.

During his appeal, Kasey correctly argued that an attempt would have to be made to verify something for it to be insufficiently verifiable.

DCYF and Assistant Attorney General Kaelen Brodie disagreed.

During the first hearing, Hightower swore she knew she would fail Kasey’s application by April. That’s why she never attempted to verify his income (or contact his character references).

Other DCYF employees echoed her false testimony when they testified that day. Both swore that Kasey’s licensor didn’t need to verify his income because she had justification for failing his application early in the process.

However, internal DCYF emails obtained by Kasey before the hearing proved something different. Hightower learned Kasey wrote to a manager criticizing her poor communication and suggested she was incompetent. Hightower didn’t decide to fail his application until July 20.

Even though Kasey had caught all three DCYF witnesses falsely testifying, the court allowed them to change their testimonies.

On day two, DCYF witnesses swore that licensors never verify income because that’s not their job. Every DCYF witness changed their story between days one and two to match Brodie’s questioning of them. That suggests coordination of false testimony, which is unethical and possibly illegal.

Gone were the justifications that a licensor didn’t need to verify income. Instead, all DCYF will ever know is whatever documentation an applicant submits with their application. Even though the financial worksheet doesn’t ask for bank statements or tax returns, applicants must submit that documentation, or DCYF will fail their application.

Kasey raised DCYF’s inconsistent testimonies to the court by citing exactly how the employees had initially testified. But the assistant attorney general objected. Brodie argued no one could remember anything they’d said during day one, and there was no transcript because it was a phone hearing. Judge Manoff sustained his objection. She forbade Kasey from referencing DCYF’s glaring perjury in his questioning of state witnesses.

To recap an event timeline regarding income verification using ​documentation and testimony:

December 19, 2019: Your licensor will discuss your income with you.

January 8, 2020: Your licensor will work with you on your income.

May 14, 2020: Kasey’s licensor declined his first income verification attempt; “no issues with income,” she said.

June 11, 2020: Kasey’s licensor declined his second income verification attempt; “no issues with income,” she repeated.

July 20, 2020: Kasey’s licensor began retaliating against him.

July 30, 2020: Kasey’s licensor swore she couldn’t verify his income.

August 4, 2020: Kasey’s licensor swore she couldn’t verify his income.

October 27, 2020: Kasey’s licensor swore she couldn’t verify his income. (Official decision)

January 4, 2021: DCYF ​emailed Kasey, attempting to verify his income.

January 7, 2022: It was unnecessary for Kasey’s licensor to verify his income​; DCYF’s income verification email is privileged, and the department can’t discuss​ it.

January 27, 2022: Licensors never verify income.

Kasey was still able to raise a valid point during the second day’s questioning despite the court’s corruption. He asked Ann Christiansen how the department would know if an applicant submitted fake pay stubs if the department never verified income.

After a long pause, Christiansen uncomfortably admitted DCYF would have no way of knowing if that happened. But she couldn’t change her story again without suffering the wrath of a raised eyebrow from Judge Manoff.

Applicant advice: PayStubs Now is a pay stub generator. You can use it to invent or enhance your earnings. After two days of inconsistent testimony, Area Administrator Marissa Corrales and Licensing Supervisor Ann Christiansen swore licensors would never verify income. Judge Eliza Jane Manoff ratified their perjury as fact. Therefore, since DCYF never verifies income, using a fake paystub generator will guarantee your income level qualifies you to foster children.


4. Despite managing up to 30 case files at once, licensors keep no written documentation (no notes, memos, reports, emails, paperwork, nothing).

Applicants are inundated with at least a dozen different forms and over a hundred questions requiring written answers. They mail paperwork back to the state or email PDF files to DCYF. The department stores the documentation for reference and retrieval.

As a government agency, of course, DCYF maintains documentation.

But during Kasey’s two-day hearing, DCYF’s witnesses testified differently. They insisted licensors never document anything, and the department doesn’t retain documentation.

Instead, after months of intensive work, licensors deliver oral reports to their managers. They include incredible feats of recollection and detailed quotes from conversations months before.

DCYF’s web of deceit was the only way the department could explain why licensor Laurel Hightower performed no verifiable work on Kasey’s application while it was active for 5 1/2 months.

However, Kasey obtained internal documentation (including emails and paperwork) from his file that began on the afternoon of July 20 and ended a few weeks later. Additionally, DCYF only submitted three exhibits to prove its case. All three came from Kasey’s application or letters he mailed to the department.

If that testimony were true, why did Kasey’s file contain any documentation at all?

Despite inconsistent testimony and utter nonsense, the court agreed with DCYF’s statements when it ruled in their favor.


5. You cannot foster (or adopt) children if you have any type of criminal conviction on your record, regardless of its nature or how long ago it occurred.

A past run-in with the law automatically disqualifies your application.

Even though you must pass an FBI and Washington State Patrol background check before DCYF begins processing your application, any previous misdemeanor or felony (even a nonviolent felony like excessive speeding) will automatically fail your application.

DCYF will use any past conviction against you because qualified immunity allows corrupt state employees to fabricate evidence and commit perjury. Those dishonest employees can invent any excuse and use it against you. They know a court and the Attorney General’s Office will attack your character based on your blemish.

Any previous run-in with the law means you’re the deceiver, not the corrupt DCYF employee. An administrative law judge will cite your past blemish as justification for failing your application, irrespective of the circumstances, rehabilitation, or community standing.

Applicant advice: Work with a private agency instead of DCYF if you have a criminal conviction and can pass a background check.


6. DCYF has no policies or procedures for licensor conduct.

If you’re confused about who does what within DCYF, rest assured because the department also doesn’t know. That false statement from Ann Christiansen was how she justified Kasey’s licensor’s misconduct with his application.

Kasey wanted to know why Laurel Hightower was allowed to mislead him into thinking everything was fine with his application between March and July. Hightower told Kasey she would pass his home study twice in June and July. She also testified she had enough justification for failing it by April.

According to first-day testimony, Hightower knew she would fail his application almost as soon as it crossed her desk. Yet she sent him encouraging emails in March and April when Kasey bought bedroom furniture and home accessories for an adopted child and shared those updates with her. She scheduled Kasey’s interview in May and passed it on June 4. She then scheduled his home inspection for June 11 and passed it on June 15. During the June home inspection, she told Kasey she would pass his home study and wrote to him on July 14, stating the same. But she reversed course and failed his home study only a few days after learning Kasey had written to a manager criticizing her poor work performance. (Hightower testified differently during the second hearing, swearing she only decided to fail his application on July 20.)

Kasey sent interrogatories to Ann Christiansen asking about licensor policies and procedures. She swore that DCYF doesn’t have any; the department only follows the WACs. Her evidence-free claim was good enough for Judge Manoff.

However, the DCYF Foster Home Licensing Roadmap, which every applicant receives and is available for download from DCYF’s website, tells a different story. The roadmap includes several procedures licensors take between receiving and eventually approving an application. The roadmap confirms that Hightower was on the verge of issuing Kasey his license to adopt children without looking at his application.

Curiously, the roadmap includes contact information and links for the Alliance for Child Welfare Excellence, where applicants receive their training, education, and support to become foster parents.

I say curiously because DCYF’s witnesses swore that the department has nothing to do with and no contact with the Alliance for Child Welfare Excellence.

That’s actually more suspicious than curious.


7. BEWARE! Your confidential information, including medical disclosures, is available for anyone in DCYF to access and share with others without your knowledge or consent.

DCYF’s application asks people to share extremely sensitive and private information with the department, including a medical evaluation from a doctor. Yet DCYF doesn’t take precautions to protect that information. In fact, evidence indicates the department openly shares confidential information internally. Applicants themselves are ridiculed by senior staff.

Kasey’s a member of the LGBTQ+ community because he’s asexual. When answering questions about past relationships, he stated he’d never been in one and didn’t think he’d ever be in a romantic relationship due to his sexual orientation. (Note: Less than 1% of adults identify as asexual, and even fewer identify as aromantic.)

Kasey obtained DCYF’s internal documentation during the discovery phase before the hearing and was shocked to see how DCYF treated his confidential disclosures.

On July 23, 2020, Licensing Supervisor Ann Christiansen emailed her manager. She openly mocked and ridiculed Kasey’s sexual orientation, suggesting he was mentally ill or unstable for identifying as asexual and aromantic.

Only two weeks later, DCYF Constituent Relations wrote to Kasey that his application failed because of his “untreated mental health issues.” (Kasey’s medical records prove he doesn’t have untreated mental health issues.)

Constituent Relations repeated Ann Christiansen’s defamatory email statements, even though Constituent Relations wasn’t listed as a recipient and is separate from the licensing division.

Since the only way to work with DCYF is by disclosing confidential medical and financial information, anyone interested in fostering or adopting should consider working with a private agency. As Kasey’s hearing proved, you can’t trust DCYF to maintain confidentiality or treat sensitive and personal information with dignity or respect.

Applicant advice: Remember that all department records are public information, so consider what factual information you reveal to the department. Ask yourself, “do I want my private information disclosed to people who might use it against me?” before providing it.


8. DCYF doesn’t count cash income, such as a server’s tips, renter contributions, or contractual reimbursement, because it’s considered an unverifiable (temporary and unreliable) source and violates WAC 388-148-1365 (2). DCYF will automatically fail your application if you rely on cash income to meet income requirements.

DCYF excludes cash income from overall income calculations. After telling prospective applicants that DCYF will work with their income, the department searches for ways to fail applications. Unverifiable income is an easy way to do that because of the department’s murky financial requirements.

Kasey’s licensor excluded nearly all his annual income, including disregarding a renter’s contributions, to fail his application by only $547.

Kasey questioned a DCYF administrator extensively about the department’s income requirements and used a server’s tips as an example. Marissa Corrales swore DCYF excludes such income from overall income calculations. The department considers all cash income temporary or unreliable. Judge Manoff agreed and reiterated DCYF’s unwritten policy in her decision.

So anyone who relies on tips, such as bartenders and servers, to compose a majority of their income is out of luck if they want to foster or adopt. There’s no reason to bother applying because you won’t qualify.


9. You are your parents’ sins.

If your mom was a sexist, you are too. If your dad was a racist, so are you.

Kasey made the mistake of being too honest when writing his personal information.

His father was (is) a racist and would say the worst things about people of color, minorities, and the disabled during his youth. (Kasey’s been estranged from his father for over 20 years partly because of his father’s vile beliefs.) Kasey provided examples in his application but emphasized how he and his brother overcame their abusive and challenging upbringings to accept everyone, regardless of race, gender identity, age, sexual orientation, etc.

In fact, as Kasey’s application stated numerous times, the child or siblings he sought to adopt would have been LGBTQ+ or disabled because they’re the most at-risk and marginalized youth. Kasey believes every child deserves a loving home without judgment.

However, Laurel Hightower testified that everything Kasey said about his father’s beliefs was Kasey’s during her fabricated interview. You can even hear Kasey gasp in shock during the first hearing when Hightower savagely misrepresented his application statements when slandering him.

On Kasey’s application, one sentence from a long paragraph about his lack of exposure to race and culture stated, “I don’t like offending people or having them feel uncomfortable around me, so I avoid the subject of race and ethnicity as virtually all of my friends are white.”

Hightower fraudulently misrepresented Kasey’s application when retaliating against him to deceive the court.

She testified that during her fabricated three-hour Zoom interview, “[Kasey] stated that he doesn’t like to talk about race due to fear that he will offend people, having offended people in the past, and finds it easier to not talk about the subject.”

DCYF implores your honesty and sincerity when filling out your personal information, but you should consider how the department treats it. You can’t trust DCYF with your information.


10. Have you ever needed counseling for any reason? DCYF says counseling is only for the mentally ill.

DCYF emphasizes that children who require counseling for anxiety, depression, neglect, abuse, trauma, stress, and loss deserve our unconditional support and sympathy. I think any reasonable person would agree with that.

But an adult who requires counseling for the same reasons is a defective human being, unworthy of trust or compassion, and incapable of fostering or adopting children.

Worse yet, you’re deceptive and untrustworthy if you’ve ever had counseling but are not currently in it or no longer see a need for it. Deception is a WAC violation and automatically fails your application.

Kasey’s one of the few people who have completely recovered from agoraphobia. He fought the disability for more than 11 years before overcoming it without requiring medication or intensive psychotherapy. Kasey’s application disclosed that he sought counseling for anxiety and stress nearly a decade ago. But he stopped when he didn’t feel it benefiting him because he had conquered agoraphobia.

DCYF witnesses insinuated that only a severely mentally ill person would stop seeing a counselor when he no longer felt counseling was helping him.

Kasey objected to such gross mischaracterizations of how he overcame his disability. The court overruled Kasey’s objections and allowed DCYF employees to defame his reputation. The court then quoted DCYF’s ignorant and defamatory opinions in its decision.

Oddly, DCYF’s application (personal information form) asks if applicants would be willing to participate in counseling with a child placed in their home. It’s question 9 under the Attitudes on Parenting section.

Kasey responded, “Yes. Journeys are best navigated together, especially the difficult ones.”

So the department has a double standard for counseling for some people, or DCYF witnesses falsely testified in this case to deceive the court.


11. “Describe how your friends and family see you” is a trap question designed to disqualify your application.

DCYF’s application asks what the department can expect to hear when a licensor contacts your character references. As most people do, Kasey listed the best things people have said about him, his character, and his responsible behavior.

Specifically, Kasey wrote that people see him as compassionate, considerate, patient, gentle, quiet, humorous, and overly generous. He mentioned his work ethic, quick and dry wit, cooking abilities, and that he’s a peacemaker who doesn’t believe in violence. Kasey wrote why his character references would say those things about him. He cited specific examples during his adolescence and adulthood when explaining how those characteristics defined him.

Licensing Supervisor Ann Christiansen selectively quoted and misrepresented one other sentence from 18 pages of personal information when testifying. She said that the department considers those qualities delusions of grandeur, self-importance, lack of empathy, and feelings of superiority. She slandered Kasey based on Hightower’s fabricated discussions with him.

Christiansen confirmed to the court that every licensor must contact an applicant’s character references. But she defended Hightower for not contacting Kasey’s references after Hightower admitted not doing her work. Christiansen echoed Hightower’s false testimony that she didn’t perform that portion of her job because she knew early in the process that she would fail Kasey’s application. (Hightower later admitted she didn’t decide to fail Kasey’s application until the end of the process. The court ignored her inconsistent testimony.)

Kasey objected to DCYF’s gross mischaracterizations and asked Christiansen a revealing question. How would DCYF know what others say about him if his licensor never contacted them for their opinions? Christiansen confessed that DCYF couldn’t know if Kasey’s writing was accurate.

Incredibly, the court specifically cited Christiansen’s slander in its decision against him while echoing DCYF’s false narrative and character assassination.

Unless the department openly discriminated against Kasey, applicants should brace themselves for despicable attacks on their character by dishonest state employees.


12. Fostering is DCYF’s only priority. You must work with a private, faith-based agency to adopt legally-free children in long-term foster care if you don’t want to work with DCYF.

DCYF offered unlicensed home studies in 2020. But the department discouraged it by deceiving people into signing up to become foster parents.

When Kasey attended orientation on January 8, 2020, DCYF had two representatives: Licensing Supervisor Ann Christiansen and a liaison for the department. Kasey asked Christiansen for an unlicensed adoption-only home study. Without hesitation, she replied that he had to become a licensed foster parent before adopting.

That was false.

Christiansen’s directive was the only reason Kasey submitted an application to foster instead of pursuing his dream of adopting legally-free tweens and teens before they aged out of the system. Anyone who’s ever met Kasey or discussed his family goals could attest that he’s never uttered the word fostering because he’s never been interested in it.

During her testimony, Christiansen said she couldn’t remember attending that event but emphatically denied she directed Kasey to become a licensed foster parent. However, Kasey wrote “adopt” or “adoption” 57 times on a foster parenting application. He only used “foster” or “fostering” 12 times and always described why he wasn’t interested in it.

Christiansen couldn’t explain why no one questioned Kasey’s adoption intentions on a fostering application if she didn’t direct him to submit one. She also had no answers why Laurel Hightower never mentioned it to anybody if she’d read his application before failing his home study.

But Kasey wasn’t the only person DCYF deceived on this subject. He attended two foster parent support sessions in Tacoma before Covid19 shut everything down. During his first session on January 27, 2020, Kasey introduced himself to a gay couple he recognized from orientation. He asked them why they wanted to foster children. They didn’t. They wanted to adopt a legally-free LGBTQ+ teenager because they’re among the most challenging kids to place. But “some woman at orientation,” told them they had to become licensed foster parents before adopting.

While Kasey has no evidence it was Christiansen who deceived them as well, once is an anomaly, and twice is a trend.


13. The Washington legislature allows the Attorney General’s Office to fabricate a statement and attribute it to their opponent, and a court must allow it into the record. The court can then use the fabricated statement as evidence when ruling against your case.

I’m sure that surprises anyone who practices law in the United States, but that’s how an administrative court ruled in Docket #134684 against Kasey’s heated objections.

Assistant Attorney General Kaelen Brodie encountered a problem during what he thought was an open-and-shut case while representing DCYF in January 2022.

After the first day’s testimony, Brodie realized Kasey had a valid appeal because DCYF had improperly failed his application. Brodie knew this because of Laurel Hightower’s interrogatory responses, which Brodie had certified without reading only three weeks before. Hightower’s testimony to the same or similar questions was completely different from her interrogatory answers. Clearly, she held a grudge against Kasey and was lying about what she did and didn’t do with his application.

An ethical and professional attorney would have done something ethical and professional. Even if it bruised his ego to lose to someone without legal experience, he would concede or at least postpone his case. His office needed to discover why Hightower had improperly failed an application and committed perjury.

But fortunately for DCYF, Brodie is an unethical attorney willing to abuse his position of power for gain. Brodie fabricated a statement and attributed it to Kasey while also misrepresenting Kasey’s application. He then falsely swore on an emergency motion to amend the state’s decision. That’s textbook perjury, a class B felony in Washington. Brodie would risk his license to practice law and face up to ten years in prison in a legitimate courtroom.

Kasey objected to Brodie’s false emergency motion and argued that the court couldn’t allow a knowingly fabricated statement into evidence.

But according to Judge Eliza Jane Manoff, the WAC forces a court to accept an emergency motion into evidence, whether factual or not.

Naturally, that’s false because we don’t live in a banana republic.

WAC 388-02-0260 states that the ALJ “must allow the department to amend (change) the notice of a department action before or during the hearing to match the evidence and facts of the case.” (emphasis added)

Intentionally misquoting a witness’s testimony and misrepresenting his application is neither evidentiary nor factual. It’s fraudulent.

Judge Manoff then ruled that Kasey knowingly provided false information on his application by citing Brodie’s fabricated statements. That’s naked judicial corruption.

Unless DCYF, Kaelen Brodie, and Judge Manoff conspired to discriminate against Kasey, every applicant should expect the same treatment from the department, the Attorney General’s Office, and Washington’s administrative courts.

Applicant advice: Administrative judges always rule in favor of DCYF. The department has a perfect record in administrative courts because judges have absolute immunity. Corrupt judges like Eliza Jane Manoff can ignore inconsistent testimony and outright perjury, use fabricated evidence, and cite nonexistent exhibits when ruling against you without accountability. Corrupt judges like Manoff enjoy lifetime appointments without oversight and face no consequences for their illegal behavior. Don’t waste your time with Washington’s administrative courts. You never had any rights, to begin with, and children’s welfare doesn’t matter to dishonorable judges like Manoff.


Based on applicant Kasey’s experience, no one should work with DCYF for any reason. Those entrusted with treating information ethically, morally, confidentially, and legally always favor Washington’s most notorious department. The entire system is a cesspool of corruption.

bottom of page