John William Kydd

John has been not only an attorney, but a friend and an advocate for me and my children through a very tough divorce. His advice and counsel is personal, straight forward, fair, and honest--much of which you don't always expect from an attorney. He is thoughtful, a good person, and plays fair (but isn't weak). I am very thankful to have had him referred to me, and I would refer him to any family or friend in need of a good family attorney.

Mr. Kydd is exceptionally well-qualified in the family law area, being a lawyer, a social worker, and a child advocate. He believes in mediation and self-determination in resolving matters -- which is far superior to having a stranger (judge) decide your matter. He is kind sensitive and thoughtful.

I exhort anyone considering retaining John Kydd for a contested custody case to carefully read my review as a warning. Mr. Kydd represented me in a high conflict, dissolution/custody case. Given the fact he was a seasoned attorney and a MSW, his actions were both inexplicable and unconscionable. He was exceedingly unethical and unprofessional. As a result of his subterfuge, my defenseless young son was needlessly subjected to an extra 1.5 years of child neglect and alienation. Thankfully, the Seattle Police rescued my son before it was too late. My ex wife was subsequently found to be unfit on 4 separate grounds, including for “neglect,” and “the abusive use of conflict by the parent which creates the danger of serious damage to the child’s psychological development.” I was awarded sole custody and my ex wife has had no visitation in nearly 10 years. My contentions are completely substantiated by the case file in the Seattle Court in Case # GD033703. Mr. Kydd knew I was an excellent client and parent and that the Court always ruled in my favor. Conversely, he knew my ex wife was unfit and mentally ill. The case involved her multiple acts of concealment, custodial interference, alienation, false allegations of child abuse and neglect. Mr. Kydd took over 15 depositions when he had no intention of going to court. He does not like to go to court, as can be inferred by the book he co-authored entitled, Divorce in Washington: A Humane Approach—How to Negotiate Your Divorce Settlement Without Tears OrTrial. In it, Mr. Kydd explains the laws for contested custody in Washington based on the Parenting Act of 1987. But he never told me about his book or to read it. When the time came to go to court, Mr. Kydd lamented, “there is nothing I can do for you and I do not want to take your thirty-thousand dollar. He had no problem taking my one-thousand dollars in preparing for court, though. M r. Kydd hoodwinked me into settling on 50/50 custody, which he knew was proscribed by the Parenting Act for high conflict cases. He knew my ex wife was categorically opposed to joint decision making. A study of the Washington State Parenting Act in 1999 concluded, Child development and post-divorce parenting experts agree that 50/50 or shared parenting arrangements are only appropriate where parents have good relations, and they can harm children where parental relations are conflicted. The Parenting Act limits these arrangements to where parental cooperation is high.” Mr. Kydd has no leg to stand on and his trial brief is a “smoking gun.” He never provided it to me until after I settled. He wrote all of the following in it: 1) [My ex] has lost no opportunity to abusively use and generate conflict in her dealing with [myself] to the clear detriment of their child’s welfare and best interests. 2) [My ex] was failing to consistently and adequately meet the needs and best interests of the parties child; She had pursued a haphazard approach to parenting related to supervision, discipline, health care and child safety issues, clearly placing the child at risk. These concerns have exacerbated over time. 3)The testimony will further demonstrate that [my ex] has consistently neglected [my son’s] health and well being. But the coup de grace for John Kydd’s credibility is found in his conclusion. He wrote, “Pursuant to 26.09.187(3) and 26.09.004, [I] should be named [my son’s] primary parent. This is not a case where the parties can continue to share an essentially joint parenting role. In the best interests of their son, [he] will function best in the primary care of the Father. Moreover, the degree of acrimony which exists between the parties makes joint decision-making impossible at the present time. The upshot of this “impossible” arrangement was catastrophic for all parties involved. Mr. Kydd deliberately enabled a parent he knew was unfit. He set up my ex wife for certain failure and she ended up destitute and homeless.