_______________________________________________
SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1356
_______________________________________________
C 095 L 86
State of Washington 49th Legislature 1986 Regular Session
By House Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives Wang, Appelwick, Tilly, Scott, Armstrong, West and Locke)
Read first time 2/6/86 and passed to Committee on Rules.
AN ACT Relating to superior courts; amending RCW 2.08.067; adding a new section to chapter 7.75 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 26.12 RCW; and adding a new section to chapter 26.09 RCW.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. Section 5, chapter 357, Laws of 1985 and RCW 2.08.067 are each amended to read as follows:
All
judicial positions created by the legislature after ((the effective date of
this act)) July 28, 1985, including the additional judicial
positions created by ((sections 1 through 3, chapter 357, Laws of 1985))
RCW 2.08.061, 2.08.062, and 2.08.064, shall be authorized only for
counties that have implemented a mandatory arbitration program for civil claims
to the maximum extent permitted by law. This section does not apply to
counties of the third class or smaller, or to two- and three-county judicial
districts with a population of less than seventy thousand. Implementing a
mandatory arbitration program to the maximum extent permitted by law does not
require a county to authorize arbitration for maintenance or child support
issues as provided in RCW 7.06.020(2) if:
(1) The county uses a show cause or motion by affidavit calendar, or other procedure by which maintenance or support issues are decided on a summary basis; or
(2) Upon the request of the chief administrative judge of a judicial district, the office of the administrator for the courts determines that a mandatory arbitration program would be more costly and time consuming to the county than the procedure then in use in the county for determining support or maintenance issues.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 7.75 RCW to read as follows:
(1) Members of the board of directors of a dispute resolution center are immune from suit in any civil action based upon any proceedings or other official acts performed in good faith as members of the board.
(2) Employees and volunteers of a dispute resolution center are immune from suit in any civil action based on any proceedings or other official acts performed in their capacity as employees or volunteers, except in cases of wilful or wanton misconduct.
(3) A dispute resolution center is immune from suit in any civil action based on any of its proceedings or other official acts performed by its employees, volunteers, or members or its board of directors, except (a) in cases of wilful or wanton misconduct by its employees or volunteers, and (b) in cases of official acts performed in bad faith by members of its board.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 26.12 RCW to read as follows:
(1) Any county may contract under chapter 39.34 RCW with any other county or counties to provide joint family court services.
(2) Any agreement between two or more counties for the operation of a joint family court service may provide that the treasurer of one participating county shall be the custodian of moneys made available for the purposes of the joint services, and that the treasurer may make payments from the moneys upon proper authorization.
(3) Any agreement between two or more counties for the operation of a joint family court service may also provide:
(a) For the joint provision or operation of services and facilities or for the provision or operation of services and facilities by one participating county under contract for the other participating counties;
(b) For appointments of members of the staff of the family court including the supervising counselor;
(c) That, for specified purposes, the members of the staff of the family court including the supervising counselor, but excluding the judges of the family court and other court personnel, shall be considered to be employees of one participating county;
(d) For other matters as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
(4) The provisions of this chapter relating to family court services provided by a single county are equally applicable to counties which contract, under this section, to provide joint family court services.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 26.09 RCW to read as follows:
(1) In any proceeding under this chapter, the matter may be set for mediation of the contested issues before or concurrent with the setting of the matter for hearing. The purpose of the mediation proceeding shall be to reduce acrimony which may exist between the parties and to develop an agreement assuring the child's close and continuing contact with both parents after the marriage is dissolved. The mediator shall use his or her best efforts to effect a settlement of the custody or visitation dispute.
(2) Each superior court may make available a mediator. The mediator may be a member of the professional staff of a family court or mental health services agency, or may be any other person or agency designated by the court. In order to provide mediation services, the court is not required to institute a family court.
(3) Mediation proceedings shall be held in private and shall be confidential. The mediator shall not testify as to any aspect of the mediation proceedings.
(4) The mediator shall assess the needs and interests of the child or children involved in the controversy and may interview the child or children if the mediator deems such interview appropriate or necessary.
(5) Any agreement reached by the parties as a result of mediation shall be reported to the court and to counsel for the parties by the mediator on the day set for mediation or any time thereafter designated by the court.