Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law Custody Cps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary Committee delays action on bills 2184 and 2186 after emotional testimony on custody and CPS delays
Summary
Lawmakers deferred action on two related custody bills after witnesses described long separations during Child Protective Services investigations and committee members raised concerns about enforcement, "weaponizing" claims, and potential harm to children if legal standards are changed.
The Judiciary Committee deferred action on bills 2184 and 2186 after several hours of emotional testimony and debate over how law should treat parental access during Child Protective Services investigations.
Madam Chair opened the item by noting, "we had a couple of very emotional bills this morning, 2184 and 2186," and asked whether the committee was ready to take action. Committee members instead agreed to continue working on amendments and gather more information before acting.
The bills drew personal testimony that lawmakers said was powerful during the hearing. Senator Lueck said he "would prefer to see the second bill move forward with some changes" but needed more time for research. Senator Paulson said he "cannot support either bill as written" but expressed willingness to try to amend them, citing the case of Kelly Craft, whose child-access dispute and a subsequent unfounded CPS report left her separated from her children for an extended period.
Several members warned against unintended consequences. Senator Meural cautioned that the committee was not "the moral police," and said there was "heartbreak on either side." Senator Brumberg argued the first bill "may put children in more harm" because some abuse cases do not meet legal thresholds even when children are at risk. Senator Murdock and others warned the proposed penalties could be "weaponized" in custody disputes.
Committee members also raised enforcement and administrative questions. Senator Brownberger said he favored aspects of the second bill that would treat in-state and out-of-state travel consistently, but he asked for data on how often the current law is enforced and why it might not be working. Members discussed a reported case in which a parent was separated from children for nine months during an investigation; several senators said that delay could indicate a system failure rather than the immediate fault of either bill.
The committee discussed funding and administrative implementation. One member summarized testimony that funds related to this issue are currently collected and distributed by three entities and said consolidating funds into a single pot could improve accountability. Members also noted that a separate bill on the same subject (bill 2291) had been referred to Judiciary and that coordination with the Human Services Committee and the Supreme Court—whose supported bill is going to a different committee—would be needed.
Madam Chair said she would not act on the bills that day: "So we will not act on it today." Senators agreed to continue work on amendments, seek additional information from Child Protective Services and human services administrators, and attempt to consolidate or harmonize related legislation before advancing a single vehicle. No formal motions or votes were taken on either bill at this meeting.
Next steps discussed included obtaining enforcement data, convening department or zone human services representatives to explain investigative timelines and resource limits, and attempting to fold important language and funding provisions into a single bill to avoid conflicting referrals between committees.
Ending: The committee adjourned after members agreed to continue deliberations and amendment work on the bills before scheduling further action.
