Custodial injury and death cases arise where the government—or a government-contracted system—has total control over a person’s environment: jails, prisons, juvenile detention centers, police holding facilities, and, in some circumstances, foster care and other state-supervised placements. In those settings, safety is not optional. When a person dies or suffers catastrophic harm in custody—through suicide, untreated medical crisis, withdrawal, overdose, use of force, restraint complications, exposure, or a failure to monitor—families are left not only with grief, but with the urgent need for answers that institutions may be slow to provide.

These matters often involve negligence in its most concrete form: missed warning signs, ignored requests for care, inadequate screening on intake, delayed emergency response, understaffed housing units, poor supervision in segregation, improper checks on at-risk individuals, and failures in training or policy that predictably lead to harm. Juvenile settings can add additional layers of vulnerability—developmental needs, heightened risk of self-harm, and the reality that children are more dependent on adults for safety and basic care. Foster-care and state-supervised placement cases likewise tend to focus on preventable risk: what the agency knew, what it documented, what it failed to address, and whether reasonable steps were taken to protect a child from foreseeable harm. When medical care is part of the story—whether provided by facility staff or outside contractors—Washington’s medical-negligence framework can also become relevant, because the claim may turn on whether providers met the accepted standard of care under the circumstances.

The statutory structure matters just as much as the facts. In Washington, most tort claims must be filed within Washington’s general three-year limitations period. And when the defendant is a governmental entity, strict pre-suit notice requirements can control the timeline: claims against the State must be presented before suit, and claims against local governments are subject to analogous pre-suit requirements that come with mandatory waiting periods.

Custodial death cases also frequently implicate civil-rights statutes, especially when the evidence supports a constitutional violation rather than ordinary negligence. Section 1983 of the United States Code provides a cause of action for deprivations of federal rights under color of state law. In the jail and prison context, the Supreme Court has held that “deliberate indifference” to serious medical needs or serious risks can violate the Eighth Amendment. Where institutional practices or policy choices drive the harm—staffing, training, intake procedures, suicide-watch protocols, restraint practices, or patterns of ignoring medical emergencies—municipal liability principles can become central. And if the injured person is incarcerated at the time of suit, federal law can impose procedural hurdles, including the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement.

These cases are built on the record—and the record is time-sensitive. Video, radio traffic, logs, medical charts, incident reports, classification and suicide-screen materials, staff rosters, and post-incident investigations often determine what can be proven. Parker’s years as a public defender and post-conviction attorney matter here: they understand how jails, prisons, and detention centers actually operate, how records are created and withheld, and where the truth tends to hide in routine paperwork. The approach is urgent and rigorous—preserve evidence early, engage qualified experts where necessary, and pursue the legal path that best fits what the facts and the law support.