On Monday, February 24, 2025, InvestigateWest reported that a new legislative proposal in Washington State, House Bill 1620, seeks to provide judges with clearer guidance in high-conflict custody cases, particularly those involving troubling parental behaviors such as domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health issues. This bill has emerged out of concerns from legal professionals, advocates, and survivors who find the existing laws confusing and often inadequate in protecting children’s welfare.

Currently, Washington law lacks explicit directives for judges when both parents exhibit behaviors that may jeopardize a child’s safety. Elizabeth Hendren, a lawyer with the Sexual Violence Law Center, highlighted that the existing framework implies a binary of “good” and “bad” parents, which complicates judicial decision-making. This ambiguity can lead to inconsistent rulings across different jurisdictions and cases.

House Bill 1620 was advanced by the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on February 7. The bill aims to establish explicit criteria for when a judge should restrict a parent’s residential time or decision-making authority. Representative Jamila Taylor, a Democrat from Federal Way and the bill’s sponsor, emphasized the need for direct guidance for judicial officers. She pointed out that the current law allows for nearly unrestricted judicial discretion, which can result in varied outcomes based on the county, the availability of legal representation, or potential implicit biases.

Support for the bill spans a wide range of stakeholders, including survivors of domestic violence, the Superior Court Judges’ Association, and various advocacy groups. Proponents argue that the legislation will offer much-needed clarity to judges who are often faced with complex custody disputes. They believe that stronger guidelines could help mitigate the risks posed by abusive parents and ensure that children are placed in safer environments.

However, the bill has also faced significant opposition from some survivors and advocates who fear it may inadvertently increase judicial discretion. Critics argue that it could lead to judges overlooking the realities of abuse, allowing them to make decisions that may not adequately consider the safety of children involved. A similar bill proposed in the previous session failed to advance after receiving backlash from mothers who felt it would undermine protections for survivors and their children.

Evangeline Stratton, a former senior managing attorney for the Washington Family Violence Appellate Project, expressed concerns that the bill might enhance judicial discretion without mandating any requisite judicial training. She cautioned that this could reinforce the false equivalency between abusive behavior and other parenting actions, ultimately endangering vulnerable families.

Under the current legal framework, courts are generally mandated to limit a parent’s time with their child if there is a documented history of domestic violence. However, judges can opt not to impose such limitations if they believe the child will not be harmed by contact with the abusive parent or if the parent’s behavior did not directly affect the child. Survivors argue that this gray area allows judges to overlook the extensive harm that domestic violence inflicts on children.

Supporters of House Bill 1620 contend that the proposed guidelines could prevent situations where children are placed in the care of abusive parents. Survivors have shared personal accounts of losing custody despite evidence of the other parent’s abusive history. Paula Sardinas, founder of the Washington Build Back Black Alliance, testified in favor of the bill, stating that it aligns with efforts to protect the most vulnerable populations, including children and victims of abuse.

Opposition to the bill also stems from concerns over specific terminology included in its provisions. For instance, the bill introduces the phrase “abusive use of conflict” to describe parents who engage in actions such as abusive litigation. Critics argue that the lack of clear definitions for these terms could lead to misinterpretations by the courts, potentially punishing survivors for trying to protect their children.

Hendren, who played a role in drafting the legislation, defended the inclusion of such terms, asserting that they are essential to protecting survivors from continued manipulation and control by abusers post-separation. She argued that clearly defining these terms will aid judges in making informed decisions.

Another contentious aspect of the bill is its provision allowing joint decision-making in cases involving domestic violence under certain conditions. Currently, Washington law prohibits mutual decision-making in these situations. While supporters argue that this change is necessary to ensure that non-abusive parents have a voice in critical decisions regarding their children, critics, including Stratton, believe that the law should explicitly designate decision-making authority to the parent without a history of domestic violence.

As the legislative process continues, Rep. Taylor remains focused on pushing the bill forward, acknowledging the complexity of issues surrounding domestic violence and custody. She expressed her determination to improve the legal framework to better protect survivors and their children, despite recognizing that abusers may exploit any legal system in place.

 

 

Source: InvestigateWest