SENATE BILL REPORT

SHB 48

BYHouse Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives Appelwick, Belcher, Wang, Wineberry, P. King, Locke, Todd, K. Wilson, Leonard and Brekke)

Revising provisions relating to parenting.

House Committe on Judiciary

Senate Committee on Judiciary

Senate Hearing Date(s):March 25, 1987; March 31, 1987

Majority Report:  Do pass.

      Signed by Senators Talmadge, Chairman; Halsan, Vice Chairman; McCaslin, Nelson, Newhouse.

Senate Staff:Lidia Mori (786-7461)

                  March 31, 1987

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, MARCH 31, 1987

BACKGROUND:

Determining who will have the legal custody of a child can be an issue in several contexts.  One or both parents of a child may seek custody in a dissolution of marriage proceeding, legal separation, or action to declare a marriage invalid.  Non-parents may seek custody when the child is not in the custody of a parent or when the parents are alleged to be unsuitable custodians.

The court must determine who shall have custody in accordance with the "best interest of the child."  The court is to consider five factors in determining the best interest:  (1) the wishes of the parents; (2) the wishes of the child; (3) the relationship of the child with the parents and others; (4) the child's adjustment to his home, school and community; (5) the physical and mental health of all individuals involved.

Once awarded, custody can be modified only when facts arise that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree.  The best interests of the child must be maintained and a change must have occurred in the circumstances of the child or his custodian in order for the court to modify a prior custody decree.  In addition, the current custodian must agree to the change, or the child must have become integrated into the family of the person seeking the change, or it must be shown that there is danger of harm to the child with the current custodian which outweighs the harm of changing custodians.

It is presumed that a parent who is not awarded custody of a child is entitled to reasonable visitation unless the court finds that it would endanger the child's physical, mental or emotional health.  Any person may petition the court for visitation at any time.  Either or both parents may be ordered by the court to pay a reasonable amount of support for any child dependent upon either or both of them.

It is a crime for the relative of a minor or an incompetent person to deny access to the minor or incompetent by any other person or agency which has a legal right to physical custody.  If the denial of access is attempted to be permanent or for harassment, the crime is a class C felony.  If the denial of access does not meet these criteria, it is a gross misdemeanor on the first offense and a class C felony on subsequent offenses.

SUMMARY:

The dissolution of marriage act is amended to remove references to "custody" and incorporate a new set of procedures relating to parenting responsibilities.

Each person in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, legal separation or declaration of invalidity is required to submit a proposed parenting plan to the court.  If a temporary order relating to parenting is sought, a parent must file a proposed temporary parenting plan, supported by an affidavit with specific information about the parent-child relationship.  If the other parent disagrees with the proposed parenting plan, then a responsive proposed parenting plan should be filed.  The court will enter a temporary parenting order which incorporates a parenting plan and provides a schedule for the child's time with each parent, designation of a temporary residence for the child, allocation of decision making authority and provision for temporary support for the child.  The court will give particular consideration to which parent has taken greater responsibility during the last twelve months for performing parenting functions on a daily basis and which plan will cause the least disruption to the child's emotional stability.  Restraining orders may be included in the temporary parenting order.

Permanent parenting plans, submitted by each party prior to the entry of a decree of dissolution, legal separation or declaration of invalidity, must provide a mechanism for resolution of future disputes.  They must also allocate decision-making authority and provide a residential schedule for the child and financial support for the child. 

Wilful extended abandonment or refusal to perform parenting functions, physical, sexual or emotional abuse of the child or a history of acts of domestic violence may cause the court to preclude or limit mutual decision making and the utilization of any dispute resolution process other than court action.  The court may limit the time the child is to spend with the parent who has engaged in such conduct.  The court is instructed to limit or preclude the provisions of the parenting plan if it finds certain factors, including neglect of the child by a parent or a long term history of physical, emotional, drug or alcohol problems, which interfere with the performance of parenting functions.

Child support will be set in accordance with existing Washington law.  Punitive awards, civil and criminal contempt and attorney fees are available sanctions for the failure to comply with a parenting plan or for negotiating a parenting plan in bad faith.

The existing law relating to custody actions commenced by third parties, such as a grandparent or another relative, remains the same; however, it is assembled under a new chapter of Title 26 RCW.

A relative is guilty of custodial interference in the second degree if, with an intent to deny access to a person, he or she takes or conceals the person from a parent, guardian, institution, or agency for more than 72 hours.

In an action to determine paternity under the uniform parentage act, the court will make provision for the residence of a minor child on the same basis as provided in the parenting plan procedure of a dissolution of marriage proceeding.

Fiscal Note:      requested

Senate Committee - Testified: Representative Marlin Appelwick; Dale B. Sawyer, Washington State Bar Association, Seattle-King County Bar Association; Allan Rudberg, United Fathers and Mothers of America; Robert Michik, Washington Coalition for Family Rights; Kevin Price; Cindy Musson, Spokane Coalition for Family Rights; Heather McRae; Pat Thibaudeau, Washington Women United; Gene Laughlin; Al Tadlock