Sponsor presents bill to let children 14+ seek suspension or termination of parenting time amid custody disputes; survivors urge broader family‑court review

Representative Cyrus Javidy presented House Bill 3322 to the House Committee on Early Childhood and Human Services on May 20, saying the bill would let a child at least 14 years old who is the subject of a parenting‑time order file a motion asking the court to suspend or terminate that parenting time if the court finds Department of Human Services has substantiated abuse and that suspension or termination is in the child’s best interest.

“Are our systems, legal, judicial, protective, actually protecting the children at the center of these cases?” Javidy asked in opening remarks, saying the bill grew from accounts from constituents and from cases in his first term where children reported harm yet later faced court orders returning them to contact they said they did not want.

The committee then heard testimony from people who said family court processes have repeatedly failed children. Anne Samuelson, who identified herself as a grandmother and intervener in a long family‑law case, asked the committee to expand its work beyond the bill and create an ad‑hoc legislative committee to examine patterns of judicial conduct, evaluate financial sanctions and coercive orders, recommend trauma‑informed practices and establish accountability mechanisms.

Rebecca Reed described a case in which her 7‑year‑old grandson has been in a psychiatric residential treatment center and asserted court orders and agency follow through were insufficient; she urged more prevention and funding for families. Carla Reyes and Lauren Ryan — each describing their own prolonged and traumatic experiences with family court and contested custody — urged reforms, more oversight of court‑appointed professionals, and protections for parents who raise safety concerns. Several witnesses said they feared retaliation from judges and awaited consequences for speaking publicly.

Committee members acknowledged the gravity of the testimony and that the subject intersects with judicial and child‑welfare jurisdictions. Representative Javidy and committee members discussed the limits of legislative authority over the judiciary but proposed continuing the conversation in the interim, potentially through a work group or an ad‑hoc legislative committee, and requested further fact finding and stakeholder engagement.

The committee held the item as an informational session for now and did not take formal action on HB 3322 at the May 20 meeting.