BILL REQ. #:  S-0711.1 

Read first time 01/20/11.   Referred to Committee on Human Services & Corrections.

     AN ACT Relating to shared parenting and its impact on youth school dropout and crime prevention; amending RCW 26.09.002 and 26.09.187; reenacting and amending RCW 26.09.004; adding a new section to chapter 26.09 RCW; and creating new sections.

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

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1   The legislature continues to find that our family law system is the primary reason for the disengagement of fathers from the lives of their children following divorce. This was the conclusion of the largest federally funded study on the effects of fathers and the children of divorce, conducted by Dr. Sanford Braver, and reported in his book, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth.
     The legislature finds that research from the national center for fathering, in a report entitled Father's Involvement in Children's Learning, is very positive to show the value of increased father involvement concerning outcomes for the respective children. The data was collected in two periods about ten years apart, from October 1-3, 1999 and then again May 16-18, 2008. In almost all categories, increased father participation had better results for the children. This is the cheapest investment that taxpayers and the legislature can make to help our children in that the cost of this legislation is about as close to zero that any legislature can claim.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 2   This act may be known and cited as the youth school dropout reduction and crime prevention act of 2011.

Sec. 3   RCW 26.09.002 and 2007 c 496 s 101 are each amended to read as follows:
     Parents have the responsibility to make decisions and perform other parental functions necessary for the care and growth of their minor children. In any proceeding between parents under this chapter, the best interests of the child shall be the standard by which the court determines and allocates the parties' parental responsibilities. The state recognizes the fundamental importance of the parent-child relationship to the welfare of the child, and that the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests. Residential time and financial support are equally important components of parenting arrangements. The best interests of the child are served by a parenting arrangement that best maintains a child's emotional growth, health and stability, and physical care, therefore there shall be a presumption in favor of shared parental responsibility unless it is not in the child's best interests. Further, the best interests of the child ((is)) are ordinarily served when the existing pattern of interaction between a parent and child is altered only to the extent necessitated by the changed relationship of the parents or as required to protect the child from physical, mental, or emotional harm.
     The legislature finds that family fragmentation creates a high social and financial cost to the involved parents and children as well as to the taxpayers and citizens of this state. The financial costs for children of divorced parents and children born to unwed or never married parents is estimated at over seven hundred million dollars per year and the social costs are even higher.
     The legislature further finds that between seven and eight of every ten high school dropouts comes from fatherless homes and boys make up a majority of these dropout casualties, costing the state over two hundred twenty thousand dollars over the lifetime for each person. This cost estimate does not include the potential federal costs to individuals in terms of food stamps, health care, public assistance, and incarceration. Almost nine out of every ten juveniles in our juvenile justice system, at a cost of seventy-five thousand dollars per year, come from fatherless homes. These juveniles impact not only their personal lives but also the lives of their victims. The same is true for eight out of every ten adult men in the state's county jails and state prisons where the cost to incarcerate is over thirty thousand dollars annually.
     The legislature finds that one way to lower dropout rates and increase high school graduation rates and also reduce instances of crime involving children, both as victims and perpetrators, is to increase the involvement of the second parent, mostly fathers, in the daily lives of their children, especially in the educational arena. A study conducted by the national education association concluded that such interaction dramatically reduced dropout rates.
     As a result, the legislature concludes that a rebuttable presumption in favor of a shared parenting arrangement following a dissolution or legal separation is in the best interests of the child or children involved and society.

Sec. 4   RCW 26.09.004 and 2009 c 502 s 1 are each reenacted and amended to read as follows:
     The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
     (1) "Military duties potentially impacting parenting functions" means those obligations imposed, voluntarily or involuntarily, on a parent serving in the armed forces that may interfere with that parent's abilities to perform his or her parenting functions under a temporary or permanent parenting plan. Military duties potentially impacting parenting functions include, but are not limited to:
     (a) "Deployment," which means the temporary transfer of a service member serving in an active-duty status to another location in support of a military operation, to include any tour of duty classified by the member's branch of the armed forces as "remote" or "unaccompanied";
     (b) "Activation" or "mobilization," which means the call-up of a national guard or reserve service member to extended active-duty status. For purposes of this definition, "mobilization" does not include national guard or reserve annual training, inactive duty days, or drill weekends; or
     (c) "Temporary duty," which means the transfer of a service member from one military base or the service member's home to a different location, usually another base, for a limited period of time to accomplish training or to assist in the performance of a noncombat mission.
     (2) "Parenting functions" means those aspects of the parent-child relationship in which the parent makes decisions and performs functions necessary for the care and growth of the child. Parenting functions include:
     (a) Maintaining a loving, stable, consistent, and nurturing relationship with the child;
     (b) Attending to the daily needs of the child, such as feeding, clothing, physical care and grooming, supervision, health care, and day care, and engaging in other activities which are appropriate to the developmental level of the child and that are within the social and economic circumstances of the particular family;
     (c) Attending to adequate education for the child, including remedial or other education essential to the best interests of the child;
     (d) Assisting the child in developing and maintaining appropriate interpersonal relationships;
     (e) Exercising appropriate judgment regarding the child's welfare, consistent with the child's developmental level and the family's social and economic circumstances; and
     (f) Providing for the financial support of the child.
     (3) "Permanent parenting plan" means a plan for parenting the child, including allocation of parenting functions, which plan is incorporated in any final decree or decree of modification in an action for dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership, declaration of invalidity, or legal separation.
     (4) "Temporary parenting plan" means a plan for parenting of the child pending final resolution of any action for dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership, declaration of invalidity, or legal separation which is incorporated in a temporary order.
     (5) "Shared parental responsibility" means shared residential placement and mutual decision-making authority.
     (6) "Shared residential placement" means an order awarding each of the parents periods of time, amounting to at least one-third of a year, in which a child resides with or is under the actual, direct, day-to-day care and supervision of each of the parents. "Shared residential placement" does not necessarily mean the child must alternate his or her residence between the households of the parents for brief periods of time.

NEW SECTION.  Sec. 5   A new section is added to chapter 26.09 RCW to read as follows:
     (1) There shall be a presumption that shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of children unless:
     (a) The parents have agreed to an alternate award of residential placement or decision-making authority to only one parent;
     (b) The limitations of RCW 26.09.191 are dispositive of the child's residential schedule; or
     (c) The court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental due to the age or needs of the child or children.
     (2) A parent alleging that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child or children shall have the burden of establishing the allegation by a preponderance of the evidence.
     (3) If a parent alleges that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to a particular child, the court, in making a determination whether a shared parental responsibility order is appropriate, may direct that an investigation be conducted in accordance with the provisions of RCW 26.09.220. If the court declines to enter a shared parental responsibility order under this section, the court shall enter findings of fact and conclusions of law stating the reasons that shared parental responsibility is not in the best interests of the child.

Sec. 6   RCW 26.09.187 and 2007 c 496 s 603 are each amended to read as follows:
     (1) DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS. The court shall not order a dispute resolution process, except court action, when it finds that any limiting factor under RCW 26.09.191 applies, or when it finds that either parent is unable to afford the cost of the proposed dispute resolution process. If a dispute resolution process is not precluded or limited, then in designating such a process the court shall consider all relevant factors, including:
     (a) Differences between the parents that would substantially inhibit their effective participation in any designated process;
     (b) The parents' wishes or agreements and, if the parents have entered into agreements, whether the agreements were made knowingly and voluntarily; and
     (c) Differences in the parents' financial circumstances that may affect their ability to participate fully in a given dispute resolution process.
     (2) ALLOCATION OF DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY.
     (a) AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. The court shall approve agreements of the parties allocating decision-making authority, or specifying rules in the areas listed in RCW 26.09.184(5)(a), when it finds that:
     (i) The agreement is consistent with any limitations on a parent's decision-making authority mandated by RCW 26.09.191; and
     (ii) The agreement is knowing and voluntary.
     (b) SOLE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. The court shall order sole decision-making to one parent when it finds that:
     (i) A limitation on the other parent's decision-making authority is mandated by RCW 26.09.191;
     (ii) Both parents are opposed to mutual decision making;
     (iii) One parent is opposed to mutual decision making, and such opposition is reasonable based on the criteria in (c) of this subsection.
     (c) MUTUAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. Except as provided in (a) and (b) of this subsection, the court shall consider the following criteria in allocating decision-making authority:
     (i) The existence of a limitation under RCW 26.09.191;
     (ii) The history of participation of each parent in decision making in each of the areas in RCW 26.09.184(5)(a);
     (iii) Whether the parents have a demonstrated ability and desire to cooperate with one another in decision making in each of the areas in RCW 26.09.184(5)(a); and
     (iv) The parents' geographic proximity to one another, to the extent that it affects their ability to make timely mutual decisions.
     (3) RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS.
     (a) The court shall make residential provisions for each child which encourage each parent to maintain a loving, stable, and nurturing relationship with the child, consistent with the best interests of the child, the child's developmental level, and the family's social and economic circumstances. There is a presumption that the child's residential schedule shall provide shared parental responsibility in accordance with section 5 of this act. The child's residential schedule shall be consistent with RCW 26.09.191. Where the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 are not dispositive of the child's residential schedule, the court shall consider the following factors:
     (i) The relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent;
     (ii) Which parent is more likely to allow and encourage the child's frequent and continuing contact with the other parent;
     (iii) The agreements of the parties, provided they were entered into knowingly and voluntarily;
     (((iii))) (iv) Each parent's past and potential for future performance of parenting functions as defined in RCW 26.09.004(((3))) (2), including whether a parent has taken greater responsibility for performing parenting functions relating to the daily needs of the child;
     (((iv))) (v) The emotional needs and developmental level of the child and any special physical needs of the child;
     (((v))) (vi) Whether the child is a nursing child;
     (vii) The child's relationship with siblings and with other significant adults, as well as the child's involvement with his or her physical surroundings, school, or other significant activities;
     (((vi))) (viii) The wishes of the parents and the wishes of a child who is sufficiently mature to express reasoned and independent preferences as to his or her residential schedule; and
     (((vii))) (ix) Each parent's employment schedule, and shall make accommodations consistent with those schedules.
     Factor (i) shall be given the greatest weight.
     (b) ((Where the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 are not dispositive, the court may order that a child frequently alternate his or her residence between the households of the parents for brief and substantially equal intervals of time if such provision is in the best interests of the child. In determining whether such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child, the court may consider the parties geographic proximity to the extent necessary to ensure the ability to share performance of the parenting functions.
     (c) For any child, residential provisions may contain any reasonable terms or conditions that facilitate the orderly and meaningful exercise of residential time by a parent, including but not limited to requirements of reasonable notice when residential time will not occur.)) For any child, residential provisions may contain any reasonable terms or conditions that facilitate the orderly and meaningful exercise of residential time by a parent, including one or more of the following:
     (i) Requirements that residential times be specified;
     (ii) Requirements of reasonable notice when residential time will not occur;
     (iii) Any other reasonable condition determined to be appropriate in the particular case including but not limited to a domestic violence assessment.
     (c) In any parenting plan in which the court finds that the parties do not have a satisfactory history of cooperation or the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 are dispositive; to the extent necessary, the parenting plan shall include a safe, neutral, and public location for the exchange of the child such as a school, day care, place of worship, or any other appropriate public facility.