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

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…