S-348                 _______________________________________________

 

                                                   SENATE BILL NO. 5269

                        _______________________________________________

 

State of Washington                              50th Legislature                              1987 Regular Session

 

By Senators Wojahn, Lee, Talmadge, Deccio, Moore, Gaspard, Kiskaddon, DeJarnatt, Conner, Bauer, Vognild, Peterson, Stratton, Johnson, Zimmerman and Garrett

 

 

Read first time 1/21/87 and referred to Committee on Human Services & Corrections.

 

 


AN ACT Relating to child abuse; and amending RCW 13.32A.010, 13.32A.170, and 13.34.020.

 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

 

        Sec. 1.  Section 15, chapter 155, Laws of 1979 and RCW 13.32A.010 are each amended to read as follows:

          The legislature finds that within any group of people there exists a need for guidelines for acceptable behavior and that, presumptively, experience and maturity are better qualifications for establishing guidelines beneficial to and protective of individual members and the group as a whole than are youth and inexperience.  The legislature further finds that it is the right and responsibility of adults to establish laws for the benefit and protection of the society; and that, in the same manner, the right and responsibility for establishing reasonable guidelines for the family unit belongs to the adults within that unit.  The legislature reaffirms its position stated in RCW 13.34.020 that the family unit is the fundamental resource of American life which should be nurtured and that it should remain intact ((in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary)) unless a child's right to conditions of minimal nurture, health, and safety is jeopardized.  The interests of a family member at risk should not be compromised in the interest of unity.

 

        Sec. 2.  Section 31, chapter 155, Laws of 1979 as last amended by section 10, chapter 257, Laws of 1985 and RCW 13.32A.170 are each amended to read as follows:

          (1) The court shall hold a fact-finding hearing to consider a proper petition and may approve or deny alternative residential placement giving due weight to the intent of the legislature that families((, absent compelling reasons to the contrary, shall remain together and that parents have the right to place reasonable rules and restrictions upon their children)) have the right to place reasonable restrictions and rules upon their children and that families should remain together unless a child's right to conditions of minimal nurture, health, and safety is jeopardized.  The court may appoint legal counsel and/or a guardian ad litem to represent the child and advise parents of their right to be represented by legal counsel.  The court may approve an order stating that the child shall be placed in a residence other than the home of his or her parent only if it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that:

          (a) The petition is not capricious;

          (b) The petitioner, if a parent or the child, has made a reasonable effort to resolve the conflict;

          (c) The conflict which exists cannot be resolved by delivery of services to the family during continued placement of the child in the parental home; and

          (d) Reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from the child's home and to make it possible for the child to return home.

          The court may not grant a petition filed by the child or the department if it is established that the petition is based only upon a dislike of reasonable rules or reasonable discipline established by the parent.

          (2) The order approving out-of-home placement shall direct the department to submit a disposition plan for a three-month placement of the child that is designed to reunite the family and resolve the family conflict.  Such plan shall delineate any conditions or limitations on parental involvement.  In making the order, the court shall further direct the department to make recommendations, as to which agency or person should have physical custody of the child, as to which parental powers should  be awarded to such agency or person, and as to parental visitation rights.  The court may direct the department to consider the cultural heritage of the child in making its recommendations.

          (3) The hearing to consider the recommendations of the department for a three-month disposition plan shall be set no later than fourteen days after the approval of the court of a petition to approve alternative residential placement.  Each party shall be notified of the time and place of such disposition hearing.

          (4) If the court approves or denies a petition for an alternative residential placement, a written statement of the reasons shall be filed.  If the court denies a petition requesting that a child be placed in a residence other than the home of his or her parent, the court shall enter an order requiring the child to remain at or return to the home of his or her parent.

          (5) If the court denies the petition, the court shall impress upon the party filing the petition of the legislative intent to restrict the proceedings to situations where a family conflict is so great that it cannot be resolved by the provision of in-home services.

          (6) A child who fails to comply with a court order directing that the child remain at or return to the home of his or her parent shall be subject to contempt proceedings, as provided in this chapter, but only if the noncompliance occurs within ninety calendar days after the day of the order.

 

        Sec. 3.  Section 30, chapter 291, Laws of 1977 ex. sess. and RCW 13.34.020 are each amended to read as follows:

          The legislature declares that the family unit is a fundamental resource of American life which should be nurtured.  Toward the continuance of this principle, the legislature declares that the family unit should remain intact ((in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary)) unless a child's right to conditions of minimal nurture, health, and safety is jeopardized.