[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6345266,"mediaKeyId","2249447-f11cbbec44613fb21355558d490120b7","parentId",2249447,"title","Committee advances parenting-plan bill after debate on presumptions, standards and training","audioSeconds",1661,"startMs",30000,"endMs",1691000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249447-f11cbbec44613fb21355558d490120b7&start=30&end=1691","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249447-f11cbbec44613fb21355558d490120b7/thumbnail_30000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6345266/Washington/Committee-advances-parenting-plan-bill-after-debate-on-presumptions-standards-and-training","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345266-bc70dd16a4d5fc4ed7a564e4d3006597/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143315&Signature=lOE6ifFAhqa0hunjPM8h2W4432GPJ0At8xMUXjSuZvt9NKhuqj5fSefJuFAbt8fTdygzaJREylNKfMGdWF4BLNRLr5d9sq5kc8aguLJi~7oenvYJQcmfC8we1tDZrjuv5IHuwGQpgKKZXqQ7mOuyy-dBf2pCA2l0-4AcwVRAmVASWZ9TQ2yYv2MZW0Zefrw39SPjyuHZ3G7AoqOJ9qYMnSerY2Dd7BKmjCAlVfYHfacYnLU8xQfIOcFVPfi~HuvVVGeIRg3HzS1t56yU7FPUlYNlHFGSmKX2B7Aoy1~Pkp8WvcVmGvad9irU1os-MixMv28kAMV6F-BaPAFKzg~wGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Civil Rights & Judiciary","date","2025-02-07T00:00:00Z","article","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Friday, Feb. 7, voted 10‑3 to report substitute House Bill 1620 out of committee with a “do pass” recommendation, advancing legislation that revises limits courts may place in parenting plans and adds several presumptions and standards in contested cases.

The bill would change how judges consider limitations on residential time, decision‑making authority and dispute‑resolution processes in parenting disputes. Committee members debated four proposed amendments on drug‑related convictions, judicial discretion, the standard of proof when a parent or household member has a conviction for an offense against a child, and funding‑dependent training for judges.

Supporters and some stakeholders said the bill aims to provide clearer guidance for judges and more predictable outcomes for litigants; opponents, including some survivors and defenders of judicial discretion, said parts of the measure risk harming survivors or imposing problematic presumptions. Representative Taylor, chairing the committee, described broad stakeholder involvement including the Superior Court Judges Association, the Washington State Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee and survivor‑advocacy groups.

Key provisions adopted and rejected

• Amendment Adam 156 (adopted): The committee adopted an amendment that raises the standard of proof to “clear and convincing evidence” to rebut presumptions when a parent or a person the parent resides with has been convicted of an offense against a child. The amendment was supported by the Washington State Bar Association’s Family Law Executive Committee, according to committee remarks. (The transcript redacted the specific offense language as “*** offense against a child.”)

• Amendment Adam 155 (failed): An amendment by Representative Walsh that would have explicitly preserved broad judicial discretion in contested parenting cases failed on a voice vote. Walsh argued it struck a balance between calls to limit and calls to preserve discretion; opponents said the amendment would undermine the bill’s guardrails.

• Amendment Adam 153 (failed): Representative Jacobson moved an amendment establishing a rebuttable presumption that an adult conviction for certain Schedule I or II narcotic drug offenses poses a present danger to a child and would require courts to restrain contact unless the parent rebuts the presumption. Several members opposed the amendment, saying an isolated or remote conviction (for example, a youthful possession conviction) could be overly broad and that existing statutory standards addressing long‑term impairment already apply.

• Amendment Adam 154 (failed): An amendment from Representative Burnett would have required, subject to funding, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to develop trauma‑informed training for judicial officers, require newly elected and appointed judges to take the training, and require sitting judges to complete continuing education every three years. The committee discussed constitutional limits on mandating judicial training and noted AOC has previously provided training when funded; the amendment was not adopted on a voice vote.

Debate, votes and next steps

Vice Chair Farber moved the bill out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation. After debate the committee called the roll; the final vote to report substitute HB 1620 was 10 ayes, 3 nays (Representative Walsh, Representative Graham and Representative Jacobson). Staff announced the tally: “10 ayes, 3 nays, and 0 excused or absent votes.”

Representative Wallace (commenting in debate) and others said they supported moving the bill forward while continuing negotiations with stakeholders to refine the measure before floor action. Representative Wallen said she would vote to advance the bill while remaining “concerned” and committed to further work; Representative Graham announced a firm no vote, citing concerns about adequacy of protections for children and survivors.

Why it matters

The bill would alter family‑law decisionmaking statewide, adding specific presumptions and procedures that judges must consider in parenting plan disputes. Changes to presumptions around drug convictions and the required proof standard in cases involving convictions for offenses against a child could affect custodial arrangements, supervised contact orders and the burdens parents must meet to regain or retain parenting time. Proposals to require or fund judicial training raised constitutional and implementation questions about how to standardize practice across independently elected judges.

Quotes from the hearing

Representative Walsh: “So in the testimony we’ve heard...there’s a lot of concern about judicial discretion...this amendment says...judges still retain broad discretion in reaching what we hope are just and equitable conclusions.”

Representative Jacobson: “If someone has had an adult conviction of certain drug crimes...absent some sort of proof...we probably should not.”

Representative Burnett on training: “Let’s keep this trauma informed. Let’s do everything we can to bring the families back together and make it healthy for the children while protect them at the same time.”

What the committee recorded as actions

The committee recorded multiple formal actions on HB 1620, including motions to adopt or reject proposed amendments and a final motion to report the substitute bill out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation. The substitute bill moves next to the House floor for further consideration. No floor amendments or final enactment date were decided at the committee hearing.

Ending

Committee members emphasized ongoing negotiation with stakeholders should the bill advance. The transcript shows continued interest from both survivor‑advocacy groups and judicial stakeholders; members signaled intent to refine statutory language before floor debate.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Civil Rights & Judiciary - 2/7/2025 10:30 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Friday, Feb. 7, voted 10‑3 to report substitute House Bill 1620 out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation, advancing changes to how courts may limit residential time, decision‑making authority and dispute resolution in contested parenting‑plan cases.","taxTitle","Civil Rights & Judiciary, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20256,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6345262,"Committee approves bill allowing housing‑court commissioners for eviction cases",1768,172000,1940000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249447-f11cbbec44613fb21355558d490120b7&start=172&end=1940","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249447-f11cbbec44613fb21355558d490120b7/thumbnail_172000.jpg","/articles/6345262/Washington/Committee-approves-bill-allowing-housingcourt-commissioners-for-eviction-cases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6345262-27d3e0d6047034f01d5b32d75d1d1e03/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143315&Signature=Kmx2WOVDrkP055PJ~vP5gb2IvW8bCTeqjgWcdLyQ94~ho86aKlswtHSZIwWzImstYFEFp0MzwetHEMpZK21QGBk8t6aIjzS0-RB8HZQ9lx8ked04pKEViIeONsnyDHo4QDj2N-53Dl6FARDSn2j7W5URvXFwtiV9Yzq3M6xLUJv1CtnYHhSDxK27Qv1MSomXwrjtPb851xYe23QoAw7-orzHzFZF6oqMuojqg6QvGHG-Bt-9yoxOUDm5JTUw69ed7hNB1x45Ir9r~Cw5JEE-ERddMDl-w9BybdyjzuQvJgeuIrh9caQ-~27OwNmCPM~XB3moVPE85rOlw4ve7gv3LA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Friday, Feb. 7, voted unanimously to report substitute House Bill 1621 out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation and adopted Amendment LOER 5 to add an emergency clause for immediate effect.

Proponents told the committee that authorizing superior courts to appoint housing court commissioners to handle unlawful detainer cases (evictions) would help reduce backlog and speed adjudication. Representative Peterson, who said she chairs the House Housing Committee, noted that eviction case wait times have been decreasing but still impose burdens in more populous counties and that the emergency clause would allow the new commissioners to begin work immediately.

Amendment and debate

The committee adopted LOER 5, which adds an emergency clause with an immediate effective date so appointed commissioners can begin handling unlawful detainer cases without delay. Supporters described the change as a practical step to “clear out the backlog” and improve adjudication speed for landlords and tenants alike.

Vote and outcome

The committee took a voice vote on the substitute bill and then staff announced the recorded result: 13 ayes, 0 nays, 0 excused or absent. Substitute HB 1621 was reported out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation and the adopted emergency clause.

Why it matters

Allowing superior courts to appoint housing‑court commissioners to hear unlawful detainer actions could change how eviction cases are scheduled and decided in counties with chronic backlogs, potentially shortening time to resolution for both landlords and tenants. Sponsors said faster adjudication is important to improving housing stability and making the civil justice system more efficient.

Ending

With the committee’s unanimous recommendation and the added emergency clause, substitute HB 1621 moves to the House floor for consideration.","The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Feb. 7 reported substitute House Bill 1621 out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation and adopted an emergency clause. Sponsors said the change will help clear eviction backlogs by permitting superior courts to appoint commissioners to hear unlawful detainer actions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee advances parenting-plan bill after debate on presumptions, standards and training

Committee approves bill allowing housing‑court commissioners for eviction cases