BILL REQ. #:  S-1355.2 

READ FIRST TIME 02/22/13.   

     AN ACT Relating to prohibiting a child custody award to a suspect in an active murder investigation; amending RCW 13.34.132, 26.09.191, 26.10.160, 13.34.136, 13.34.380, and 74.14B.010; adding new sections to chapter 13.34 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 26.09 RCW; and creating a new section.

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

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1   This act may be known and cited as the Braden and Charlie Powell act of 2013.

Sec. 2   RCW 13.34.132 and 2011 c 309 s 28 are each amended to read as follows:
     A court may order that a petition seeking termination of the parent and child relationship be filed if the following requirements are met:
     (1) The court has removed the child from his or her home pursuant to RCW 13.34.130;
     (2) Termination is recommended by the department or the supervising agency;
     (3) Termination is in the best interests of the child; and
     (4) Because of the existence of aggravated circumstances, reasonable efforts to unify the family are not required. Notwithstanding the existence of aggravated circumstances, reasonable efforts may be required if the court or department determines it is in the best interests of the child. In determining whether aggravated circumstances exist by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, the court shall consider one or more of the following:
     (a) Conviction of the parent of rape of the child in the first, second, or third degree as defined in RCW 9A.44.073, 9A.44.076, and 9A.44.079;
     (b) Conviction of the parent of criminal mistreatment of the child in the first or second degree as defined in RCW 9A.42.020 and 9A.42.030;
     (c) Conviction of the parent of one of the following assault crimes, when the child is the victim: Assault in the first or second degree as defined in RCW 9A.36.011 and 9A.36.021 or assault of a child in the first or second degree as defined in RCW 9A.36.120 or 9A.36.130;
     (d) Conviction of the parent of murder, manslaughter, or homicide by abuse of the child's other parent, sibling, or another child;
     (e) Conviction of the parent of attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit a crime listed in (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this subsection;
     (f) A finding by a court that a parent is a sexually violent predator as defined in RCW 71.09.020;
     (g) Failure of the parent to complete available treatment ordered under this chapter or the equivalent laws of another state, where such failure has resulted in a prior termination of parental rights to another child and the parent has failed to effect significant change in the interim. In the case of a parent of an Indian child, as defined in RCW 13.38.040, the court shall also consider tribal efforts to assist the parent in completing treatment and make it possible for the child to return home;
     (h) An infant under three years of age has been abandoned;
     (i) Conviction of the parent, when a child has been born of the offense, of: (A) A sex offense under chapter 9A.44 RCW; or (B) incest under RCW 9A.64.020;
     (j) Circumstances in which the parent has been identified by law enforcement as a suspect in an active murder investigation for aggravated first degree murder, first degree murder, or second degree murder. The court shall review in camera all available evidence from law enforcement provided pursuant to section 3 of this act in determining whether reunification may be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the child.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 3   A new section is added to chapter 13.34 RCW to read as follows:
     Upon the request of the court or department of social and health services, any Washington law enforcement agency conducting an active murder investigation for aggravated first degree murder, first degree murder, or second degree murder for which a person who has been identified as a suspect is involved in a child dependency proceeding pursuant to this chapter must provide to the court any and all details of the investigation, for in camera review, that may be relevant to the child dependency proceeding.

Sec. 4   RCW 26.09.191 and 2011 c 89 s 6 are each amended to read as follows:
     (1) The permanent parenting plan shall not require mutual decision-making or designation of a dispute resolution process other than court action if it is found that a parent has engaged in any of the following conduct: (a) Willful abandonment that continues for an extended period of time or substantial refusal to perform parenting functions; (b) physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; ((or)) (c) a history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault which causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm; or (d) the parent has been identified by law enforcement as a suspect in an active murder investigation for aggravated first degree murder, first degree murder, or second degree murder.
     (2)(a) The parent's residential time with the child shall be limited if it is found that the parent has engaged in any of the following conduct: (i) Willful abandonment that continues for an extended period of time or substantial refusal to perform parenting functions; (ii) physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; (iii) a history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault which causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm; or (iv) the parent has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense under:
     (A) RCW 9A.44.076 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
     (B) RCW 9A.44.079 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
     (C) RCW 9A.44.086 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
     (D) RCW 9A.44.089;
     (E) RCW 9A.44.093;
     (F) RCW 9A.44.096;
     (G) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2) if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
     (H) Chapter 9.68A RCW;
     (I) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (a)(iv)(A) through (H) of this subsection;
     (J) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (a)(iv)(A) through (H) of this subsection.
     This subsection (2)(a) shall not apply when (c) or (d) of this subsection applies.
     (b) The parent's residential time with the child shall be limited if it is found that the parent resides with a person who has engaged in any of the following conduct: (i) Physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; (ii) a history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault that causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm; or (iii) the person has been convicted as an adult or as a juvenile has been adjudicated of a sex offense under:
     (A) RCW 9A.44.076 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
     (B) RCW 9A.44.079 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
     (C) RCW 9A.44.086 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
     (D) RCW 9A.44.089;
     (E) RCW 9A.44.093;
     (F) RCW 9A.44.096;
     (G) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2) if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
     (H) Chapter 9.68A RCW;
     (I) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (b)(iii)(A) through (H) of this subsection;
     (J) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (b)(iii)(A) through (H) of this subsection.
     This subsection (2)(b) shall not apply when (c) or (e) of this subsection applies.
     (c) If a parent has been found to be a sexual predator under chapter 71.09 RCW or under an analogous statute of any other jurisdiction, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with a child that would otherwise be allowed under this chapter. If a parent resides with an adult or a juvenile who has been found to be a sexual predator under chapter 71.09 RCW or under an analogous statute of any other jurisdiction, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with the parent's child except contact that occurs outside that person's presence.
     (d) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense listed in (d)(i) through (ix) of this subsection poses a present danger to a child. Unless the parent rebuts this presumption, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with a child that would otherwise be allowed under this chapter:
     (i) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2), provided that the person convicted was at least five years older than the other person;
     (ii) RCW 9A.44.073;
     (iii) RCW 9A.44.076, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (iv) RCW 9A.44.079, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (v) RCW 9A.44.083;
     (vi) RCW 9A.44.086, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (vii) RCW 9A.44.100;
     (viii) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (d)(i) through (vii) of this subsection;
     (ix) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (d)(i) through (vii) of this subsection.
     (e) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who resides with a person who, as an adult, has been convicted, or as a juvenile has been adjudicated, of the sex offenses listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection places a child at risk of abuse or harm when that parent exercises residential time in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person. Unless the parent rebuts the presumption, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with the parent's child except for contact that occurs outside of the convicted or adjudicated person's presence:
     (i) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2), provided that the person convicted was at least five years older than the other person;
     (ii) RCW 9A.44.073;
     (iii) RCW 9A.44.076, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (iv) RCW 9A.44.079, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (v) RCW 9A.44.083;
     (vi) RCW 9A.44.086, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (vii) RCW 9A.44.100;
     (viii) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (e)(i) through (vii) of this subsection;
     (ix) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (e)(i) through (vii) of this subsection.
     (f) The presumption established in (d) of this subsection may be rebutted only after a written finding that:
     (i) If the child was not the victim of the sex offense committed by the parent requesting residential time, (A) contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, and (B) the offending parent has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes such contact is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child; or
     (ii) If the child was the victim of the sex offense committed by the parent requesting residential time, (A) contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, (B) if the child is in or has been in therapy for victims of sexual abuse, the child's counselor believes such contact between the child and the offending parent is in the child's best interest, and (C) the offending parent has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes such contact is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child.
     (g) The presumption established in (e) of this subsection may be rebutted only after a written finding that:
     (i) If the child was not the victim of the sex offense committed by the person who is residing with the parent requesting residential time, (A) contact between the child and the parent residing with the convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and that parent is able to protect the child in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person, and (B) the convicted or adjudicated person has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes such contact is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child; or
     (ii) If the child was the victim of the sex offense committed by the person who is residing with the parent requesting residential time, (A) contact between the child and the parent in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, (B) if the child is in or has been in therapy for victims of sexual abuse, the child's counselor believes such contact between the child and the parent residing with the convicted or adjudicated person in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person is in the child's best interest, and (C) the convicted or adjudicated person has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes contact between the parent and child in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child.
     (h) If the court finds that the parent has met the burden of rebutting the presumption under (f) of this subsection, the court may allow a parent who has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense listed in (d)(i) through (ix) of this subsection to have residential time with the child supervised by a neutral and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such residential time. The court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between the child and the parent unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing or capable of protecting the child.
     (i) If the court finds that the parent has met the burden of rebutting the presumption under (g) of this subsection, the court may allow a parent residing with a person who has been adjudicated as a juvenile of a sex offense listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection to have residential time with the child in the presence of the person adjudicated as a juvenile, supervised by a neutral and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such residential time. The court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between the child and the parent unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing or capable of protecting the child.
     (j) If the court finds that the parent has met the burden of rebutting the presumption under (g) of this subsection, the court may allow a parent residing with a person who, as an adult, has been convicted of a sex offense listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection to have residential time with the child in the presence of the convicted person supervised by a neutral and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such residential time. The court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between the child and the parent unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing or capable of protecting the child.
     (k) A court shall not order unsupervised contact between the offending parent and a child of the offending parent who was sexually abused by that parent. A court may order unsupervised contact between the offending parent and a child who was not sexually abused by the parent after the presumption under (d) of this subsection has been rebutted and supervised residential time has occurred for at least two years with no further arrests or convictions of sex offenses involving children under chapter 9A.44 RCW, RCW 9A.64.020, or chapter 9.68A RCW and (i) the sex offense of the offending parent was not committed against a child of the offending parent, and (ii) the court finds that unsupervised contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, after consideration of the testimony of a state-certified therapist, mental health counselor, or social worker with expertise in treating child sexual abuse victims who has supervised at least one period of residential time between the parent and the child, and after consideration of evidence of the offending parent's compliance with community supervision requirements, if any. If the offending parent was not ordered by a court to participate in treatment for sex offenders, then the parent shall obtain a psychosexual evaluation conducted by a certified sex offender treatment provider or a certified affiliate sex offender treatment provider indicating that the offender has the lowest likelihood of risk to reoffend before the court grants unsupervised contact between the parent and a child.
     (l) A court may order unsupervised contact between the parent and a child which may occur in the presence of a juvenile adjudicated of a sex offense listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection who resides with the parent after the presumption under (e) of this subsection has been rebutted and supervised residential time has occurred for at least two years during which time the adjudicated juvenile has had no further arrests, adjudications, or convictions of sex offenses involving children under chapter 9A.44 RCW, RCW 9A.64.020, or chapter 9.68A RCW, and (i) the court finds that unsupervised contact between the child and the parent that may occur in the presence of the adjudicated juvenile is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, after consideration of the testimony of a state-certified therapist, mental health counselor, or social worker with expertise in treatment of child sexual abuse victims who has supervised at least one period of residential time between the parent and the child in the presence of the adjudicated juvenile, and after consideration of evidence of the adjudicated juvenile's compliance with community supervision or parole requirements, if any. If the adjudicated juvenile was not ordered by a court to participate in treatment for sex offenders, then the adjudicated juvenile shall obtain a psychosexual evaluation conducted by a certified sex offender treatment provider or a certified affiliate sex offender treatment provider indicating that the adjudicated juvenile has the lowest likelihood of risk to reoffend before the court grants unsupervised contact between the parent and a child which may occur in the presence of the adjudicated juvenile who is residing with the parent.
     (m)(i) The limitations imposed by the court under (a) or (b) of this subsection shall be reasonably calculated to protect the child from the physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm that could result if the child has contact with the parent requesting residential time. The limitations shall also be reasonably calculated to provide for the safety of the parent who may be at risk of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm that could result if the parent has contact with the parent requesting residential time. The limitations the court may impose include, but are not limited to: Supervised contact between the child and the parent or completion of relevant counseling or treatment. If the court expressly finds based on the evidence that limitations on the residential time with the child will not adequately protect the child from the harm or abuse that could result if the child has contact with the parent requesting residential time, the court shall restrain the parent requesting residential time from all contact with the child.
     (ii) The court shall not enter an order under (a) of this subsection allowing a parent to have contact with a child if the parent has been found by clear and convincing evidence in a civil action or by a preponderance of the evidence in a dependency action to have sexually abused the child, except upon recommendation by an evaluator or therapist for the child that the child is ready for contact with the parent and will not be harmed by the contact. The court shall not enter an order allowing a parent to have contact with the child in the offender's presence if the parent resides with a person who has been found by clear and convincing evidence in a civil action or by a preponderance of the evidence in a dependency action to have sexually abused a child, unless the court finds that the parent accepts that the person engaged in the harmful conduct and the parent is willing to and capable of protecting the child from harm from the person.
     (iii) If the court limits residential time under (a) or (b) of this subsection to require supervised contact between the child and the parent, the court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between a child and a parent who has engaged in physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of the child unless the court finds based upon the evidence that the supervisor accepts that the harmful conduct occurred and is willing to and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing to or capable of protecting the child.
      (n) If the court expressly finds based on the evidence that contact between the parent and the child will not cause physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm to the child and that the probability that the parent's or other person's harmful or abusive conduct will recur is so remote that it would not be in the child's best interests to apply the limitations of (a), (b), and (m)(i) and (iii) of this subsection, or if the court expressly finds that the parent's conduct did not have an impact on the child, then the court need not apply the limitations of (a), (b), and (m)(i) and (iii) of this subsection. The weight given to the existence of a protection order issued under chapter 26.50 RCW as to domestic violence is within the discretion of the court. This subsection shall not apply when (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m)(ii) of this subsection apply.
     (3) The parent's residential time with the child shall be limited if it is found that the parent has been identified by law enforcement as a suspect in an active murder investigation for aggravated first degree murder, first degree murder, or second degree murder. Under no circumstances may the parent be designated as the primary residential parent while the murder investigation is pending.
     (4) A parent's involvement or conduct may have an adverse effect on the child's best interests, and the court may preclude or limit any provisions of the parenting plan, if any of the following factors exist:
     (a) A parent's neglect or substantial nonperformance of parenting functions;
     (b) A long-term emotional or physical impairment which interferes with the parent's performance of parenting functions as defined in RCW 26.09.004;
     (c) A long-term impairment resulting from drug, alcohol, or other substance abuse that interferes with the performance of parenting functions;
     (d) The absence or substantial impairment of emotional ties between the parent and the child;
     (e) The abusive use of conflict by the parent which creates the danger of serious damage to the child's psychological development;
     (f) A parent has withheld from the other parent access to the child for a protracted period without good cause; or
     (g) Such other factors or conduct as the court expressly finds adverse to the best interests of the child.
     (((4))) (5) In cases involving allegations of limiting factors under subsection (2)(a)(ii) and (iii) of this section, both parties shall be screened to determine the appropriateness of a comprehensive assessment regarding the impact of the limiting factor on the child and the parties.
     (((5))) (6) In entering a permanent parenting plan, the court shall not draw any presumptions from the provisions of the temporary parenting plan.
     (((6))) (7) In determining whether any of the conduct described in this section has occurred, the court shall apply the civil rules of evidence, proof, and procedure.
     (((7))) (8) For the purposes of this section:
     (a) "A parent's child" means that parent's natural child, adopted child, or stepchild; and
     (b) "Social worker" means a person with a master's or further advanced degree from a social work educational program accredited and approved as provided in RCW 18.320.010.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 5   A new section is added to chapter 26.09 RCW to read as follows:
     Upon the request of a party or the court, any Washington law enforcement agency conducting an active murder investigation for aggravated first degree murder, first degree murder, or second degree murder for which a named suspect is involved in a child custody proceeding pursuant to this chapter or chapter 26.10 RCW must provide to the court, in writing, any and all details of the investigation that may be relevant to the child custody proceeding.

Sec. 6   RCW 26.10.160 and 2011 c 89 s 7 are each amended to read as follows:
     (1) A parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable visitation rights except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
     (2)(a) Visitation with the child shall be limited if it is found that the parent seeking visitation has engaged in any of the following conduct: (i) Willful abandonment that continues for an extended period of time or substantial refusal to perform parenting functions; (ii) physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; (iii) a history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault which causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm; ((or)) (iv) the parent has been identified by law enforcement as a suspect in an active murder investigation for aggravated first degree murder, first degree murder, or second degree murder; or (v) the parent has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense under:
     (A) RCW 9A.44.076 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
     (B) RCW 9A.44.079 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
     (C) RCW 9A.44.086 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
     (D) RCW 9A.44.089;
     (E) RCW 9A.44.093;
     (F) RCW 9A.44.096;
     (G) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2) if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
     (H) Chapter 9.68A RCW;
     (I) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (a)(((iv))) (v)(A) through (H) of this subsection;
     (J) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (a)(((iv))) (v)(A) through (H) of this subsection.
     This subsection (2)(a) shall not apply when (c) or (d) of this subsection applies.
     (b) The parent's visitation with the child shall be limited if it is found that the parent resides with a person who has engaged in any of the following conduct: (i) Physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; (ii) a history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault that causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm; or (iii) the person has been convicted as an adult or as a juvenile has been adjudicated of a sex offense under:
     (A) RCW 9A.44.076 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
     (B) RCW 9A.44.079 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
     (C) RCW 9A.44.086 if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
     (D) RCW 9A.44.089;
     (E) RCW 9A.44.093;
     (F) RCW 9A.44.096;
     (G) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2) if, because of the difference in age between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
     (H) Chapter 9.68A RCW;
     (I) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (b)(iii)(A) through (H) of this subsection;
     (J) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (b)(iii)(A) through (H) of this subsection.
     This subsection (2)(b) shall not apply when (c) or (e) of this subsection applies.
     (c) If a parent has been found to be a sexual predator under chapter 71.09 RCW or under an analogous statute of any other jurisdiction, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with a child that would otherwise be allowed under this chapter. If a parent resides with an adult or a juvenile who has been found to be a sexual predator under chapter 71.09 RCW or under an analogous statute of any other jurisdiction, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with the parent's child except contact that occurs outside that person's presence.
     (d) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense listed in (d)(i) through (ix) of this subsection poses a present danger to a child. Unless the parent rebuts this presumption, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with a child that would otherwise be allowed under this chapter:
     (i) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2), provided that the person convicted was at least five years older than the other person;
     (ii) RCW 9A.44.073;
     (iii) RCW 9A.44.076, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (iv) RCW 9A.44.079, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (v) RCW 9A.44.083;
     (vi) RCW 9A.44.086, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (vii) RCW 9A.44.100;
     (viii) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (d)(i) through (vii) of this subsection;
     (ix) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (d)(i) through (vii) of this subsection.
     (e) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who resides with a person who, as an adult, has been convicted, or as a juvenile has been adjudicated, of the sex offenses listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection places a child at risk of abuse or harm when that parent exercises visitation in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person. Unless the parent rebuts the presumption, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with the parent's child except for contact that occurs outside of the convicted or adjudicated person's presence:
     (i) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2), provided that the person convicted was at least five years older than the other person;
     (ii) RCW 9A.44.073;
     (iii) RCW 9A.44.076, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (iv) RCW 9A.44.079, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (v) RCW 9A.44.083;
     (vi) RCW 9A.44.086, provided that the person convicted was at least eight years older than the victim;
     (vii) RCW 9A.44.100;
     (viii) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the offenses listed in (e)(i) through (vii) of this subsection;
     (ix) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in (e)(i) through (vii) of this subsection.
     (f) The presumption established in (d) of this subsection may be rebutted only after a written finding that:
     (i) If the child was not the victim of the sex offense committed by the parent requesting visitation, (A) contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, and (B) the offending parent has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes such contact is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child; or
     (ii) If the child was the victim of the sex offense committed by the parent requesting visitation, (A) contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, (B) if the child is in or has been in therapy for victims of sexual abuse, the child's counselor believes such contact between the child and the offending parent is in the child's best interest, and (C) the offending parent has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes such contact is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child.
     (g) The presumption established in (e) of this subsection may be rebutted only after a written finding that:
     (i) If the child was not the victim of the sex offense committed by the person who is residing with the parent requesting visitation, (A) contact between the child and the parent residing with the convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and that parent is able to protect the child in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person, and (B) the convicted or adjudicated person has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes such contact is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child; or
     (ii) If the child was the victim of the sex offense committed by the person who is residing with the parent requesting visitation, (A) contact between the child and the parent in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, (B) if the child is in or has been in therapy for victims of sexual abuse, the child's counselor believes such contact between the child and the parent residing with the convicted or adjudicated person in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person is in the child's best interest, and (C) the convicted or adjudicated person has successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes contact between the parent and child in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child.
     (h) If the court finds that the parent has met the burden of rebutting the presumption under (f) of this subsection, the court may allow a parent who has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense listed in (d)(i) through (ix) of this subsection to have visitation with the child supervised by a neutral and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such visitation. The court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between the child and the parent unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing or capable of protecting the child.
     (i) If the court finds that the parent has met the burden of rebutting the presumption under (g) of this subsection, the court may allow a parent residing with a person who has been adjudicated as a juvenile of a sex offense listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection to have visitation with the child in the presence of the person adjudicated as a juvenile, supervised by a neutral and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such visitation. The court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between the child and the parent unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing or capable of protecting the child.
     (j) If the court finds that the parent has met the burden of rebutting the presumption under (g) of this subsection, the court may allow a parent residing with a person who, as an adult, has been convicted of a sex offense listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection to have visitation with the child in the presence of the convicted person supervised by a neutral and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such visitation. The court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between the child and the parent unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing or capable of protecting the child.
     (k) A court shall not order unsupervised contact between the offending parent and a child of the offending parent who was sexually abused by that parent. A court may order unsupervised contact between the offending parent and a child who was not sexually abused by the parent after the presumption under (d) of this subsection has been rebutted and supervised visitation has occurred for at least two years with no further arrests or convictions of sex offenses involving children under chapter 9A.44 RCW, RCW 9A.64.020, or chapter 9.68A RCW and (i) the sex offense of the offending parent was not committed against a child of the offending parent, and (ii) the court finds that unsupervised contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, after consideration of the testimony of a state-certified therapist, mental health counselor, or social worker with expertise in treating child sexual abuse victims who has supervised at least one period of visitation between the parent and the child, and after consideration of evidence of the offending parent's compliance with community supervision requirements, if any. If the offending parent was not ordered by a court to participate in treatment for sex offenders, then the parent shall obtain a psychosexual evaluation conducted by a certified sex offender treatment provider or a certified affiliate sex offender treatment provider indicating that the offender has the lowest likelihood of risk to reoffend before the court grants unsupervised contact between the parent and a child.
     (l) A court may order unsupervised contact between the parent and a child which may occur in the presence of a juvenile adjudicated of a sex offense listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection who resides with the parent after the presumption under (e) of this subsection has been rebutted and supervised visitation has occurred for at least two years during which time the adjudicated juvenile has had no further arrests, adjudications, or convictions of sex offenses involving children under chapter 9A.44 RCW, RCW 9A.64.020, or chapter 9.68A RCW, and (i) the court finds that unsupervised contact between the child and the parent that may occur in the presence of the adjudicated juvenile is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, after consideration of the testimony of a state-certified therapist, mental health counselor, or social worker with expertise in treatment of child sexual abuse victims who has supervised at least one period of visitation between the parent and the child in the presence of the adjudicated juvenile, and after consideration of evidence of the adjudicated juvenile's compliance with community supervision or parole requirements, if any. If the adjudicated juvenile was not ordered by a court to participate in treatment for sex offenders, then the adjudicated juvenile shall obtain a psychosexual evaluation conducted by a certified sex offender treatment provider or a certified affiliate sex offender treatment provider indicating that the adjudicated juvenile has the lowest likelihood of risk to reoffend before the court grants unsupervised contact between the parent and a child which may occur in the presence of the adjudicated juvenile who is residing with the parent.
     (m)(i) The limitations imposed by the court under (a) or (b) of this subsection shall be reasonably calculated to protect the child from the physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm that could result if the child has contact with the parent requesting visitation. If the court expressly finds based on the evidence that limitations on visitation with the child will not adequately protect the child from the harm or abuse that could result if the child has contact with the parent requesting visitation, the court shall restrain the person seeking visitation from all contact with the child.
     (ii) The court shall not enter an order under (a) of this subsection allowing a parent to have contact with a child if the parent has been found by clear and convincing evidence in a civil action or by a preponderance of the evidence in a dependency action to have sexually abused the child, except upon recommendation by an evaluator or therapist for the child that the child is ready for contact with the parent and will not be harmed by the contact. The court shall not enter an order allowing a parent to have contact with the child in the offender's presence if the parent resides with a person who has been found by clear and convincing evidence in a civil action or by a preponderance of the evidence in a dependency action to have sexually abused a child, unless the court finds that the parent accepts that the person engaged in the harmful conduct and the parent is willing to and capable of protecting the child from harm from the person.
     (iii) If the court limits visitation under (a) or (b) of this subsection to require supervised contact between the child and the parent, the court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between a child and a parent who has engaged in physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of the child unless the court finds based upon the evidence that the supervisor accepts that the harmful conduct occurred and is willing to and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing to or capable of protecting the child.
      (n) If the court expressly finds based on the evidence that contact between the parent and the child will not cause physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm to the child and that the probability that the parent's or other person's harmful or abusive conduct will recur is so remote that it would not be in the child's best interests to apply the limitations of (a), (b), and (m)(i) and (iii) of this subsection, or if the court expressly finds that the parent's conduct did not have an impact on the child, then the court need not apply the limitations of (a), (b), and (m)(i) and (iii) of this subsection. The weight given to the existence of a protection order issued under chapter 26.50 RCW as to domestic violence is within the discretion of the court. This subsection shall not apply when (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m)(ii) of this subsection apply.
     (3) Any person may petition the court for visitation rights at any time including, but not limited to, custody proceedings. The court may order visitation rights for any person when visitation may serve the best interest of the child whether or not there has been any change of circumstances.
     (4) The court may modify an order granting or denying visitation rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child. Modification of a parent's visitation rights shall be subject to the requirements of subsection (2) of this section.
     (5) For the purposes of this section:
     (a) "A parent's child" means that parent's natural child, adopted child, or stepchild; and
     (b) "Social worker" means a person with a master's or further advanced degree from a social work educational program accredited and approved as provided in RCW 18.320.010.

Sec. 7   RCW 13.34.136 and 2011 c 309 s 29 are each amended to read as follows:
     (1) Whenever a child is ordered removed from the home, a permanency plan shall be developed no later than sixty days from the time the supervising agency assumes responsibility for providing services, including placing the child, or at the time of a hearing under RCW 13.34.130, whichever occurs first. The permanency planning process continues until a permanency planning goal is achieved or dependency is dismissed. The planning process shall include reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent's home.
     (2) The agency supervising the dependency shall submit a written permanency plan to all parties and the court not less than fourteen days prior to the scheduled hearing. Responsive reports of parties not in agreement with the department's or supervising agency's proposed permanency plan must be provided to the department or supervising agency, all other parties, and the court at least seven days prior to the hearing.
     The permanency plan shall include:
     (a) A permanency plan of care that shall identify one of the following outcomes as a primary goal and may identify additional outcomes as alternative goals: Return of the child to the home of the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian; adoption, including a tribal customary adoption as defined in RCW 13.38.040; guardianship; permanent legal custody; long-term relative or foster care, until the child is age eighteen, with a written agreement between the parties and the care provider; successful completion of a responsible living skills program; or independent living, if appropriate and if the child is age sixteen or older. The department or supervising agency shall not discharge a child to an independent living situation before the child is eighteen years of age unless the child becomes emancipated pursuant to chapter 13.64 RCW;
     (b) Unless the court has ordered, pursuant to RCW 13.34.130(((6))) (8), that a termination petition be filed, a specific plan as to where the child will be placed, what steps will be taken to return the child home, what steps the supervising agency or the department will take to promote existing appropriate sibling relationships and/or facilitate placement together or contact in accordance with the best interests of each child, and what actions the department or supervising agency will take to maintain parent-child ties. All aspects of the plan shall include the goal of achieving permanence for the child.
     (i) The department's or supervising agency's plan shall specify what services the parents will be offered to enable them to resume custody, what requirements the parents must meet to resume custody, and a time limit for each service plan and parental requirement.
     (ii) Visitation is the right of the family, including the child and the parent, in cases in which visitation is in the best interest of the child. Early, consistent, and frequent visitation is crucial for maintaining parent-child relationships and making it possible for parents and children to safely reunify. The supervising agency or department shall encourage the maximum parent and child and sibling contact possible, when it is in the best interest of the child, including regular visitation and participation by the parents in the care of the child while the child is in placement. Visitation shall not be limited as a sanction for a parent's failure to comply with court orders or services where the health, safety, or welfare of the child is not at risk as a result of the visitation. When there is an active criminal investigation against a parent or sibling who desires visitation with a child, the department shall make a concerted effort to consult with the assigned law enforcement officer in the criminal case before recommending any changes in parent/child or child/sibling contact. The results of the consultation shall be communicated to the court. Visitation may be limited or denied only if the court determines that such limitation or denial is necessary to protect the child's health, safety, or welfare. The court and the department or supervising agency should rely upon community resources, relatives, foster parents, and other appropriate persons to provide transportation and supervision for visitation to the extent that such resources are available, and appropriate, and the child's safety would not be compromised.
     (iii) A child shall be placed as close to the child's home as possible, preferably in the child's own neighborhood, unless the court finds that placement at a greater distance is necessary to promote the child's or parents' well-being.
     (iv) The plan shall state whether both in-state and, where appropriate, out-of-state placement options have been considered by the department or supervising agency.
     (v) Unless it is not in the best interests of the child, whenever practical, the plan should ensure the child remains enrolled in the school the child was attending at the time the child entered foster care.
     (vi) The supervising agency or department shall provide all reasonable services that are available within the department or supervising agency, or within the community, or those services which the department has existing contracts to purchase. It shall report to the court if it is unable to provide such services; and
     (c) If the court has ordered, pursuant to RCW 13.34.130(((6))) (8), that a termination petition be filed, a specific plan as to where the child will be placed, what steps will be taken to achieve permanency for the child, services to be offered or provided to the child, and, if visitation would be in the best interests of the child, a recommendation to the court regarding visitation between parent and child pending a fact-finding hearing on the termination petition. The department or supervising agency shall not be required to develop a plan of services for the parents or provide services to the parents if the court orders a termination petition be filed. However, reasonable efforts to ensure visitation and contact between siblings shall be made unless there is reasonable cause to believe the best interests of the child or siblings would be jeopardized.
     (3) Permanency planning goals should be achieved at the earliest possible date. If the child has been in out-of-home care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months, the court shall require the department or supervising agency to file a petition seeking termination of parental rights in accordance with RCW 13.34.145(3)(b)(vi). In cases where parental rights have been terminated, the child is legally free for adoption, and adoption has been identified as the primary permanency planning goal, it shall be a goal to complete the adoption within six months following entry of the termination order.
     (4) If the court determines that the continuation of reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from his or her home or to safely return the child home should not be part of the permanency plan of care for the child, reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child.
     (5) The identified outcomes and goals of the permanency plan may change over time based upon the circumstances of the particular case.
     (6) The court shall consider the child's relationships with the child's siblings in accordance with RCW 13.34.130(((4))) (6). Whenever the permanency plan for a child is adoption, the court shall encourage the prospective adoptive parents, birth parents, foster parents, kinship caregivers, and the department or other supervising agency to seriously consider the long-term benefits to the child adoptee and his or her siblings of providing for and facilitating continuing postadoption contact between the siblings. To the extent that it is feasible, and when it is in the best interests of the child adoptee and his or her siblings, contact between the siblings should be frequent and of a similar nature as that which existed prior to the adoption. If the child adoptee or his or her siblings are represented by an attorney or guardian ad litem in a proceeding under this chapter or in any other child custody proceeding, the court shall inquire of each attorney and guardian ad litem regarding the potential benefits of continuing contact between the siblings and the potential detriments of severing contact. This section does not require the department of social and health services or other supervising agency to agree to any specific provisions in an open adoption agreement and does not create a new obligation for the department to provide supervision or transportation for visits between siblings separated by adoption from foster care.
     (7) For purposes related to permanency planning:
     (a) "Guardianship" means a dependency guardianship or a legal guardianship pursuant to chapter 11.88 RCW or equivalent laws of another state or a federally recognized Indian tribe.
     (b) "Permanent custody order" means a custody order entered pursuant to chapter 26.10 RCW.
     (c) "Permanent legal custody" means legal custody pursuant to chapter 26.10 RCW or equivalent laws of another state or a federally recognized Indian tribe.

Sec. 8   RCW 13.34.380 and 2009 c 520 s 45 are each amended to read as follows:
     The department shall develop consistent policies and protocols, based on current relevant research, concerning visitation for dependent children to be implemented consistently throughout the state. The department shall develop the policies and protocols in consultation with researchers in the field, community-based agencies, court-appointed special advocates, parents' representatives, and court representatives. The policies and protocols shall include, but not be limited to: The structure and quality of visitations; consultation with the assigned law enforcement officer in the event of an active criminal investigation of the parent; and training for department and supervising agency caseworkers, visitation supervisors, and foster parents related to visitation.
     The policies and protocols shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter and implementation of the policies and protocols shall be consistent with relevant orders of the court.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 9   A new section is added to chapter 13.34 RCW to read as follows:
     In the event a judge orders a parent to undergo a psychosexual evaluation, and pending the outcome of the evaluation, the department shall reassess visitation duration, supervision, and location, if appropriate. If the assessment indicates the current visitation plan might compromise the safety of the child, the department has the authority to alter the plan, pending the outcome of the evaluation.

Sec. 10   RCW 74.14B.010 and 1999 c 389 s 5 are each amended to read as follows:
     (1) Caseworkers employed in children services shall meet minimum standards established by the department of social and health services. Comprehensive training for caseworkers shall be completed before such caseworkers are assigned to case-carrying responsibilities without direct supervision. Intermittent, part-time, and standby workers shall be subject to the same minimum standards and training.
     (2) Ongoing specialized training shall be provided for persons responsible for investigating child sexual abuse. Training participants shall have the opportunity to practice interview skills and receive feedback from instructors.
     (3) The department, the criminal justice training commission, the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs, and the Washington association of prosecuting attorneys shall design and implement statewide training that contains consistent elements for persons engaged in the interviewing of children, including law enforcement, prosecution, and child protective services.
     (4) The training shall: (a) Be based on research-based practices and standards; (b) minimize the trauma of all persons who are interviewed during abuse investigations; (c) provide methods of reducing the number of investigative interviews necessary whenever possible; (d) assure, to the extent possible, that investigative interviews are thorough, objective, and complete; (e) recognize needs of special populations, such as persons with developmental disabilities; (f) recognize the nature and consequences of victimization; (g) require investigative interviews to be conducted in a manner most likely to permit the interviewed persons the maximum emotional comfort under the circumstances; (h) address record retention and retrieval; and (i) documentation of investigative interviews.
     (5) The identification of domestic violence is critical in ensuring the safety of children in the child welfare system. As a result, ongoing domestic violence training and consultation shall be provided to caseworkers, including how to use the children's administration's practice guide to domestic violence.