Thank you for letting me write this letter to you and allowing me to voice my concerns in this case. I first heard a motion on this case on Oct. 17, 1997. The motion was for the purpose of Revision, and Removing the Guardian ad Litem, and was brought by Lynda Allen (pro se). I read her motion, the response by Mark Inderbitzen’s attorney, the Guardian ad Litem report, and other pleadings.

I denied her motion. And initially agreed with the GAL’s report, and the Psychological evaluation of Lynda Allen. She then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and brought up allegations about the GAL, and his failure to consider a 1984 case involving Mark Inderbitzen and his former wife and daughter.

I reread the GAL’s report and the psych evaluation of Lynda Allen. Neither of these reports mentioned anything about the 1984 case, even though Lynda Allen had told the GAL about the 1984 case.

I had my J.A. retrieve the 1984 case files from archives and was astounded at what I found. The case was a Dissolution case between Mark Inderbitzen and Shari Inderbitzen. The reason for the dissolution was that Mark Inderbitzen had sexually molested his daughter, who was 2 1/2 at the time. The parallel between the 1984 case (84-3-00264-5) and the 1994 case were truly eerie and raised many red flags in my mind.

The following facts from the ‘84 case are not in dispute:

1. Mark met Shari, by his own account, in 1974 and he started having sex with her. He was 21 at the time and she was not quite 11 years old. Shari was born in March of 1963

2. Mark and Shari eventually married and had a daughter in 1981.

3. In 1984, Shari filed for Dissolution, alleging that Mark had sexually molested his daughter.

4. A Psychological Evaluation was done on Shari, which indicated that she was probably not making up the allegation.

5. A Psychological evaluation was done on the daughter, which indicated that she was probably not making up the allegations.

6. A Psychological evaluation was done on mark Inderbitzen, but I could not find it in the file. I later found a summary of this report in the ’94 file. It indicated that mark refused a Penile Plethysmograph as part of the Psychological Sexual Evaluation.

7. One Polygraph examination done on Mark indicated that he was lying.

8. There was medical documentation that indicted that the daughter had a torn vagina.

Judge Verharen granted the Dissolution adn ordered that Mark Inderbitzin have only supervised visitation with his daughter. He also ordered that Mark pay child support and, in addition, that he pay for counseling for his former wife and daughter.

Keep in mind, the facts of the 1984 case were not considered to be relevant by the GAL in the present case. All of these facts can be found in Case Number 84-3-00264-5. I have these files in my chambers.

RE: 1994 case (94-5-00454-5)

Mark met Lynda in 1985. He was 32 years old at the time and she was 19. The age difference is virtually the same as the ’84 case. Eventually, they had a daughter, Amy. The parties separated and Mark was granted visitation.

After one of these visits, *** told Lynda that her father had “touched her in her privates”. *** was about 3 to 4 years old at the time. There was a medical examination done, which was inconclusive. Julia Moore, M.D., did a diagnosis of Mark which did not include any analysis of the ’84 case.

Three polygraph tests were done on Mark. GAL failed to mention the test of July 8, 1994, which Mark failed. The other two tests are mentioned by the GAL. These were given on July 12. 1994 and July 14, 1994. He passed one test and the other was inconclusive.

Lynda took two polygraphs. She passed one and one was inconclusive. The GAL fails to mention the test that she passed in his report to the court.

The GAL, in his final report, states that he had spoken to the ex-wife, Shari, and that she had recanted any accusations of the child molestation by Mark Inderbitzen. I believe this statement to be false based on personal knowledge and from speaking with the new GAL, Doug Schafer.

The GAL also states that Mark Inderbitzen was given a series of questions by polygraph, and his answers “clearly” indicate that he was telling the truth, and that he is not deviant in any way. This statement is not true. Mark Inderbitzen took three polygraph tests. He passed one, one was inconclusive, and one indicated that he was lying.

Based on the above information and the complete files of the 1984 and 1994 cases, I amended the court order regarding visitation by Lynda Allen. I granted her supervised visitation on the weekends and ordered that Mark Inderbitzen complete a full Psycho Sexual evaluation. I further ordered that the GAL be replaced by a new GAL, and that a report be given to the court considereing all of the facts in the 1984 and 1994 cases. I did this based on CR 60(b)(c).

I made contact with Dr. Traywick to get a copy of his 1984 evaluation of Mark Inderbitzen. This was mentioned in the 1984 file, but the report was not in the file. Dr. Traywick told me that he would supply a report if it was subpoenaed. Eventually, I found a summary of the report in the 1994 case file, and had no further contact with Dr. Traywick.

I left a message at Dr. Washburns office to get a copy of his evaluation. When reviewing the file for the first time, I could only find the cover sheet of his evaluation. Upon further review, I found the full report and had no further contact with his office.

I called Dr. Moore to clarify her evaluation of Lynda Allen. It was unclear from her evaluation whether she considered the 1984 case at all. She informed me that she did not consider the 1984 case in her evaluation and I had no further contact with her.

I do not feel that any of these ex parte contacts are in violation of any rules or case law, as they were not seeking any new information or opinions, but merely to get the reports that were already in the files and to clarify one of those reports.

Sincerely, /s/ Rudy J. Tollefson, Judge Superior Court

cc: Pierce County Clerk’s File 94-5-00454-5

Penned note: Given the short time I had to respond these factors are merely a few of the discrepancies, omissions, and misleading statements that I have found in reviewing these files. RT