Chris Lanese

Judge Lanese is unprofessional, bias and probably prejudice. He removed me from the court room without cause. After I asked to respond to him calling me to be the problem for my sons charges. He said I don’t make my son accountable for his choices, yet I’m the one that put a missing person report and had a warrant issued. My son has an addiction to fentanyl and Judge Lanese is NOT considering this to be the root of the problem. Lanese made up his mind after seeing my son was mixed and judged him as a criminal. My son ONLY has had charges now that he has been using drugs and is a caring kind person. He has turned himself in and tried to get help but needs a judge who will help him by following the reason why the juvenile court was created in the first place , touse therapeutic and rehabilitation to better the child so they are not affected in their adult life. I was removed from my sons court hearing for speaking up after Judge Lanese accused my son of not calling from the treatment center before leaving, to explain the facility took my sons option for making ANY phone calls. I spoke with the staff and was confused on why they would take away my sons support system. But Lanese made sure to remove me from court to prevent the truth for being put on record. Lanese also did not asked my son if he had anything to say before making his sentence but made sure to ask the prosecutor and myself. My son is 16 years old and Yakima county was AWSOME when helping my son and not seeing him as a criminal by a child with a sickness battling addiction. Thurston county juvenile court has been trying to send my son to JR from the moment he got into their system. Probation and prosecutor are buddy buddies and probation supervisor is not the middle man to look out for my sons best interest in holding him accountable but also helping him with what he needs. This system is a scary place for any parents child to be in, Yakima I felt my son was safe this county I’m scared for my sons freed

Another example of a judge who is biased toward government attorneys. He ignored case law interpreting the state constitution and instead went with old case law that had long since been reversed by newer cases to achieve a result the state desired.