[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6125022,"mediaKeyId","2678715-bc8dc020095b05e1c07ac21302aeacf3","parentId",2678715,"title","Heated testimony as committee considers rewritten parenting-plan law; advocates, judges and survivors clash over House amendments","audioSeconds",3496,"startMs",2911000,"endMs",6407000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2678715-bc8dc020095b05e1c07ac21302aeacf3&start=2911&end=6407","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2678715-bc8dc020095b05e1c07ac21302aeacf3/thumbnail_2911000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6125022/Washington/Heated-testimony-as-committee-considers-rewritten-parenting-plan-law-advocates-judges-and-survivors-clash-over-House-amendments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125022-71475f3e110ead4fd9b2d5349b71fdaa/orig.mp4?Expires=1771215341&Signature=jR0iUpOjaGyrlsmSK8UQI5CM647hMkYEtD9LIPvTvW5g4lGCbVdrwE4d7RCAAao~9Pl391Tzfd3fouV-QxgW-QjVvE3CgSMaGd3J-4bKjvowU9Vg2Si2~MmfoxpHh9NHhuuctnYQ4dkVrbxotJD7OqqhLWMfYNZX0HDwJE9vMEGFTX~PVZJxQjLoBWzAxjxZYYc2EslycSTCcqkrlFZPwbeygyn2hQblPhVBjiVvXF6aNRE5pTDT7DL7j6q5gSGgcoiomin3TQbAo3soRrLtBKcSqUyJ~7l5Nr77YeKpHVQgj~e9Wpkp7Won~YSjI8kxcB2CscE9oqslc3DDr4jRiA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Law & Justice","date","2025-03-18T00:00:00Z","article","Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1620, a major rewrite of the law governing parenting plans in dissolution and legal-separation cases, drew extensive testimony and sharply divergent views at the Senate Law & Justice Committee public hearing.

Staff counsel Patrick Moore summarized the bill as reorganizing and revising when courts may impose limitations on parenting time and decision-making because of a parent's conduct, adding new definitions and establishing procedures for cases involving allegations of child abuse and domestic violence (the bill uses the term \"domestic abuse\"). The statutory structure would also restrict courts from ordering certain dispute-resolution processes when a parent has engaged in specified abusive conduct, and would require written findings in some circumstances.

Judges and judicial associations told the committee they support the original bill that committee members had previously reviewed but opposed an amended version that passed the House. King County Superior Court Judge Janet Helson and Trial Court Judge Monica Carey urged rejection of the House striker and restoration of the original text, saying the original offered clearer guidance and required findings that produce consistent results and an appealable record. Judge Kristin Ferreira, president of the Superior Court Judges Association, said judicial education and the original bill's required findings would reduce inconsistent outcomes.

Domestic-violence survivors, advocates and nonprofit legal-service providers asked the committee to retain the original bill's protections. Karen White of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Mary Welch of Northwest Justice Project said the House amendments removed important safeguards, including the definition and use of \"abusive use of conflict,\" and introduced new, undefined terms that will confuse unrepresented litigants. Several survivors described long patterns of post-separation litigation, repeated false reports, and cases in which custody was awarded to a parent with documented criminal arrests or founded child-protection findings.

Other witnesses who support the striker version argued it will prevent judges from \"taking sides\" and urged additional judicial discretion. Opponents said the House language could enable courts to label both parties as equally abusive without a careful analysis of coercive control and patterns of abuse; they warned that provisions approving so-called mutual-abuse findings risked punishing survivors and ignoring power dynamics. Witnesses on both sides described instances in which litigants believe the law or judges produced unjust results.

Several technical issues were raised: whether survivors should be allowed to opt into alternative dispute-resolution processes, how to treat allegations of abusive litigation, the role of municipal courts and the availability of attorney's fees, and whether required findings would create clearer appellate records or simply add complexity. Senator Fortunato, among others, asked about post-vest remedies and weaponization concerns cited by parents on both sides.

The hearing included dozens of individual stories from survivors describing alleged court decisions that placed children with parents they said were abusive, and from judges and legal professionals who said the original bill would create clearer standards and more consistent written findings. The record on whether the House-amended version or the original bill better protects children and survivors remains contested; committee members did not take a vote during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Law & Justice - 3/18/2025 8:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","A comprehensive rewrite of Washington's parenting-plan law, Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1620, produced hours of divided testimony as judges, domestic-violence advocates, survivors and legal-service providers disagreed over protections for children and limits on judicial discretion.","taxTitle","Law & Justice, Senate, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20508,"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},6125043,"Committee hears bill to update court interpreter rules, AOC and court officials urge passage",570,26000,596000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2678715-bc8dc020095b05e1c07ac21302aeacf3&start=26&end=596","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2678715-bc8dc020095b05e1c07ac21302aeacf3/thumbnail_26000.jpg","/articles/6125043/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-to-update-court-interpreter-rules-AOC-and-court-officials-urge-passage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125043-4a13c52c6bf73cc4b07f1154a35f7ac1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771215341&Signature=oLiZM9xgWDR7mHvflEdkGpx0ZptP2gBKXpxa8VpCdpBf1NNgA4Bia5q8fkWGRyvLBVViwJCC77kSd-52ShaMW2BnjOnxaiQFLZ14PMqkrQjE-RDVtY-QjXLuOv8ViJ-olb72S66aFMtf8QT2K7rBLuz51C6NM2-5LVCwNo9uH8n0G~eVa6vYttzNI8gNgWwSZALV81KrOa1~HfuItU49a5Fozr3IhRPoMTp4LynlxeGM~uEQygezIeCM232RRwd2NXv~sjUswpvmCMvOe6ygWg5Ka5sQfIzrgbKxfxoWeA8r0j95skIScMKdSrxApSNhbB1iXCACJRZVzrb3GcEosA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1174, which revises state law governing court interpreters, was the subject of a public hearing before the Washington Senate Law & Justice Committee. Staff counsel Ryan Giannini summarized the bill as an Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) request that modernizes terminology, clarifies appointment processes and payment responsibilities, updates reimbursement rates and requires language access plans from trial courts prior to AOC reimbursement.

Ryan Giannini, staff counsel to the committee, told members the bill “updates statutory provisions related to court interpreters” and aligns state law with current court practice and federal and state case law. Representative Strom Peterson, prime sponsor, described the measure as an access-to-justice step that adds flexibility and modernization to existing statute.

Court and AOC witnesses urged support. Michael Diaz, judge on the Court of Appeals Division I and chair of the interpreter commission, said the statute dates to 1989 and that the bill would harmonize state law with federal and state developments and current operations.

James Wells, language access supervisor at the Administrative Office of the Courts, said the proposed changes will “help ensure that Washington can continue being a leader in serving our community,” noting the state was an early adopter of court language-access policies and that the law has fallen behind current practice. Luisa Garcia, manager of Seattle Municipal Court Interpret Services, said the changes will improve how courts secure interpreters and manage teams and credentials, and will help courts steward taxpayer funds more efficiently.

Haley Perkins, court program supervisor in AOC’s Office of Judicial and Legislative Relations, said the bill codifies practices already in use, clarifies judges’ role in identifying suitable interpreters and will let courts make better use of the reimbursement program the Legislature funded in 2019.

Committee Chair Dhingra closed the public hearing after staff noted 38 people signed in pro and 67 signed in con. No committee action was recorded during the hearing.

Supporters asked the committee to advance the bill to maintain court access for people with limited English proficiency and to align statute with current funding and operational practices; Giannini and witnesses said a fiscal note is available.","Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1174 would modernize Washington's court-interpreter statutes to clarify appointment, payment, terminology and AOC responsibilities.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6125033,"Bill would modernize notice rules for museums to claim loaned or abandoned items",703,1022000,1725000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2678715-bc8dc020095b05e1c07ac21302aeacf3&start=1022&end=1725","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2678715-bc8dc020095b05e1c07ac21302aeacf3/thumbnail_1022000.jpg","/articles/6125033/Washington/Bill-would-modernize-notice-rules-for-museums-to-claim-loaned-or-abandoned-items","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125033-f9abfbeb22f8ab58b45aae08a44cffe4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771215341&Signature=OaZFEK9QxNpggxLH36hxAKCnh5yhfDPhLMpS8Sd~n~LUKpKFE0esRuXBCB3eIBhQCKXRXcL9Lx2c3fmQl8wTnuaNGRXFMVtPMmDA49fY7j3vlykyGlIrtxjgIWOaL2zAZ--wGLgUUyX~fGNeixmoVrwDY9~JFKufk6SKBfTNwUPrsOcp1Eat2xtV72-DvMonJNMr140iyfrRjFIMgDVEsXUl2x6LRLh~FfxvHhsY-GBn21pJeuA5xLbXGIcU4gT-rW7Cr8NylJOhkLscEf2VjCCh8mCnH0jmCdZHm11g0orykLOtSFIJ8pKH4LYAFAhEH~maW73K5JOmV3x~G6t10g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1731 would change how museums and historical societies provide notice to owners of loaned or abandoned property before title vests in the institution. Under current law, museums that hold property at the end of a loan must use certified mail and, if that fails, publish notice in a local periodical for two consecutive weeks; 90 days after the second week of publication title vests in the museum if no claim is made.

Patrick Moore, staff counsel, told the Law & Justice Committee the bill replaces the single-publication option with several alternative notice methods, at least one of which must be used for three consecutive weeks. Authorized notice options include posting on an official website or social media accounts, documenting phone attempts, sending email from an official address and posting notice at the museum itself. For property found without donor documentation, public notice must be posted on the museum's website or in a public space and anyone claiming ownership must submit written proof.

Representative Kevin Waters, sponsor, said the change addresses a practical problem: many museums are volunteer-run and have limited storage; modern tools such as email and social media can reach owners more efficiently than costly paid publication. Brad Richardson, executive director of the Clark County Historical Museum and president of the Washington Museum Association, testified the requirement was last updated in 1983 and imposes a financial and logistical burden on small museums; he said the proposed alternatives would increase the chance of finding owners while reducing costs.

Senator Fortunato asked whether the bill includes a post-vesting remedy for owners who learn later that property was transferred; Representative Waters said he would be open to an amendment to address after-the-fact claims.

Staff said a fiscal note is available. The committee closed the public hearing; staff reported a substantial number of sign-ins in support.","House Bill 1731 would add alternative electronic and documented methods for museums to notify owners of loaned or abandoned property before title transfers to the museum.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6125038,"Panel backs statutory cleanup to align service-of-process rules with business code",339,634000,973000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2678715-bc8dc020095b05e1c07ac21302aeacf3&start=634&end=973","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2678715-bc8dc020095b05e1c07ac21302aeacf3/thumbnail_634000.jpg","/articles/6125038/Washington/Panel-backs-statutory-cleanup-to-align-service-of-process-rules-with-business-code","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125038-9764077da231409bb0e9225278725e70/orig.mp4?Expires=1771215341&Signature=WAT-kVH6X-38Q67Jbmn4shVtDdQMFdrvSC8AQ8c4nsKpqw3-Kk0qD6kx9EviQrHjpaUwT4D4Ek5fiDHBzB90H0cYraBpjC2yKKhrbM3eaiPNrMeN4omA9lLafzvoVhM5xNtufVTaMns0MipPYZh2l7yXVOjFfS5HkMfNFE8mCFyjILWiSnIkhJN9tk9lgPjB3Tnixoy41EklmxwcITfV2D2GeybkMTpjKe3-4VdvtWpgX9AkVvM2RbfMLy4pD0JzIaGRkkw3vW-EmBP2d5uI6GgF2AyEKIZfUCFTaET-FB1Im-FwgpqNnAUAxWXiRF2H8DBCbO-JXy6SnZfYweCXFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1361, brought to the Senate Law & Justice Committee at the request of the Secretary of State, would revise Washington's service-of-process statutes to align general civil-procedure rules with the Uniform Business Organization Code and clarify procedures for serving nonresident motorists.

Ryan Giannini, staff counsel to the committee, summarized that the Uniform Business Organization Code adopted in 2015 created new standards for serving business entities, but existing civil procedure statutes were not amended then, leaving two conflicting methods. The bill would reconcile those provisions and restructure statutes for clarity. The bill would also clarify how a nonresident motorist involved in an accident may be served and makes the procedures applicable regardless of whether a party is represented by counsel.

Representative Laurie Jinkins Hill (sponsor in the transcript identified as Representative Hill) told the committee the measure is largely a statutory cleanup that will reduce attorney fees and confusion among pro se litigants. Scott Douglas, director of the Corporations and Charities Division at the Secretary of State, testified the bill aligns Title 4 civil procedure language with RCW 23.95 (Uniform Business Organization Code) and breaks dense current language into clearer sections, including nonattorney-friendly instructions for nonresident motorists.

Staff said the bill is nearly identical to a prior Senate bill that passed unanimously last year; a fiscal note was not requested. The committee closed the public hearing with no immediate action reported.","House Bill 1361, an agency-request bill from the Secretary of State, would align general service-of-process statutes with the Uniform Business Organization Code and clarify nonresident motorist service procedures. Secretary of State staff and the sponsor told the Law & Justice Committee the changes reduce confusion and help pro se litigants.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6125027,"Lawmakers consider consolidating civil asset forfeiture rules, adding notice and reporting",185,1764000,1949000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2678715-bc8dc020095b05e1c07ac21302aeacf3&start=1764&end=1949","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2678715-bc8dc020095b05e1c07ac21302aeacf3/thumbnail_1764000.jpg","/articles/6125027/Washington/Lawmakers-consider-consolidating-civil-asset-forfeiture-rules-adding-notice-and-reporting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125027-0791061564fcfd12ea9902104ff6255c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771215341&Signature=d8KampgwFSdw1xPUDAqvQdgVAcKH2VmhdYoaADnR9j8S8IJCkxM1QefTHcP9W1Sa6vGDYaRRDjbN3XPnROTRO3BeWi2u0GIPzgNoORsu1vytzZzIu8KYJOhIFOTynFb727Y-gXb~lyaLYfCzU7H2B-HSff8ktrGeFU0e-FZMUq7L7vpH~hIC8-leIcWlst23v1aGUJyQKNyD699nRPPg~q1~mxkjH-ScIg56vaJrchI1iFo92qcJHY9uf5N~R2XSPfAHfSLBAGXxMIJslslXQJpcOj4GXy8TzUjDoGHkHxSsLldlzVZ7-U5tGp07YgI0VQf1UJBT5OLvAujpnmcbhg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1440, which would reorganize and standardize civil asset forfeiture procedures, drew testimony from the bill sponsor, law-enforcement organizations and state agencies at a public hearing of the Senate Law & Justice Committee.

Joe McKittrick, staff counsel, told the committee the bill would create a new chapter governing civil asset forfeiture that mirrors the Controlled Substances Act'style process and applies it to a set of criminal statutes listed in the bill report. Under the proposal, seizing agencies must notify property owners within 15 days, and owners or claimants have 60 days (120 days for real property) to challenge the forfeiture. The seizing agency bears the burden by a preponderance of evidence. After forfeiture and satisfaction of any victim restitution, agencies may sell, retain for official use or transfer forfeited property and must remit 10% of proceeds to the State General Fund; the bill creates reporting requirements for seized and forfeited property aggregated by State Patrol on a public website.

Representative Roger Goodman, prime sponsor, said the bill is a multi-year effort to address two concerns: inconsistent procedures scattered through multiple statutes and the lack of transparency and tracking for seized property. Goodman told the committee the bill consolidates forfeiture procedures, sets the burden on the state and extends time for owners to respond; he also said reporting was scaled back from an earlier version because of budget constraints. He confirmed a previously enacted provision directs 10% of proceeds to a behavioral-health-related fund and that provision continues.

Law enforcement witnesses supported many structural elements but raised technical questions. Melina Thompson, legislative director at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, asked for clarifying language to distinguish seizures taken for evidentiary purposes from forfeiture proceedings. James McMahon, policy director for the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, and Michelle Walker, prosecutor for the City of Kent, asked for clarity on paying court-ordered restitution prior to disposition, allowing municipal courts as forums for certain appeals and accounting for storage and maintenance costs in net proceeds calculations. McMahon also asked for clearer language about maintaining the condition of seized property.

Staff said a fiscal note is available and the bill would take effect Jan. 1, 2026 if enacted. The committee closed public testimony after receiving pro and con sign-ins.","Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1440 would create a single statutory chapter for civil asset forfeiture proceedings, require notice timelines, broaden reporting and set procedures for disposition and proceeds. Sponsors said the bill increases consistency and transparency; law enforcement groups sought clarity on restitution, storage costs,","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Heated testimony as committee considers rewritten parenting-plan law; advocates, judges and survivors clash over House amendments

Committee hears bill to update court interpreter rules, AOC and court officials urge passage

Bill would modernize notice rules for museums to claim loaned or abandoned items

Panel backs statutory cleanup to align service-of-process rules with business code

Lawmakers consider consolidating civil asset forfeiture rules, adding notice and reporting