Heated testimony on HB 1620 as survivors, judges differ on parenting plan changes

Edie Adams, staff to the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee, opened the panel on House Bill 1620 by summarizing the bill as a reorganization and update of existing parenting‑plan limitations under RCW 26.09.191. Adams told the committee the bill separates mandatory limitations tied to specified conduct—such as child abuse or domestic violence—from discretionary limitations and adds clearer requirements for evaluations, supervised visitation, and written findings by the court.

"For the record, Edie Adams, staff to the committee," Adams said in her staff report. Representative Jamila Taylor, the bill sponsor, framed HB 1620 as a targeted reform to give judges clearer guidance and to require written findings where judges exercise discretion in ways that have major consequences for families.

Supporters testified that HB 1620 improves clarity, particularly for unrepresented litigants and courts. Mary Welch of the Northwest Justice Project said the statute is currently "extremely convoluted" and that the bill's reorganization and added definitions would reduce inconsistent outcomes. The Superior Court Judges Association (represented by Judge Alicia Burton and Commissioner Barbara McIngvale) urged support, saying the bill simplifies the statute and requires explicit findings, which the judges' groups said will increase predictability and help self‑represented parties navigate complex family law proceedings.

Opponents—many of them survivors and survivor‑advocates—urged the committee to reject the bill or to pause and craft survivor‑centered reforms. Several speakers said the bill would expand judicial discretion in ways that could harm survivors and children. Survivor Gina Bloom described an appellate case from her experience and argued the bill would give judges more latitude to award custody despite domestic‑violence findings. Other survivors, including Tamara Emerson and Shira Cole, said the changes could enable custodial litigation to be weaponized by abusers and urged the Legislature to adopt the Model Code recommended by national family‑court experts instead.

Key clarifications and examples from the hearing: staff said King County district courts already manage large protection‑order calendars (Adams reported "over 200 protection order hearings a month" in King County). The bill creates a presumption framework for sole decision making tied to specified mandatory factors, and it requires courts to make written findings and to use a multifactor analysis before declining to impose limitations. The Family Law Executive Committee of the Washington State Bar Association recommended specifying a clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard for a rebuttable presumption addressed in section language.

The committee heard both survivor testimony urging delay or major revision and institutional support from judges and legal aid experts who said the statute needs organization and definitions to reduce inconsistent outcomes. No committee vote was recorded in the transcript; the hearing ended and the committee moved to its next agenda item.