HOUSE BILL REPORT
SSB 6009
As Amended by the House
BYSenate Committee on Law & Justice (originally sponsored by Senators Owen, Nelson, Warnke, Moore and Smith)
Pertaining to custodial interference.
House Committe on Judiciary
Majority Report: Do pass with amendments. (17)
Signed by Representatives Appelwick, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Padden, Ranking Republican Member; Belcher, Brough, Dellwo, Hargrove, Inslee, P. King, R. Meyers, Moyer, H. Myers, Patrick, Scott, D. Sommers, Tate and Wineberry.
House Staff:Pat Shelledy (786-7149)
AS PASSED HOUSE APRIL 13, 1989
BACKGROUND:
A relative of a person is guilty of custodial interference in the second degree if the relative takes a person with intent to deny access to the person by a parent, guardian, institution, agency or other person having lawful right to physical custody of the person. Current law does not expressly cover people or agencies which do not have lawful physical custody but have a right to access to the child pursuant to a residential schedule in the parenting plan, such as the noncustodial parent.
The court can impose against a person convicted of custodial interference the reasonable expenses of locating and returning the child.
It is a defense to custodial interference if the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the purpose of taking the child was to protect the defendant or the child from imminent physical harm.
SUMMARY:
A court may find a parent in contempt of court if, upon motion for contempt, the court finds that the parent has failed to comply with the court-ordered residential plan. If the court holds the parent in contempt, upon a first conviction, the court shall award the moving party additional time with the child equal to the time lost due to the parent's noncompliance, attorneys fees and costs, and a civil award of at least $100. The court may also imprison the noncomplying parent in jail until the parent agrees to comply with the court order but no longer than 180 days. Upon a second conviction for contempt of court, the court shall award additional time with the child twice the amount of time lost due to the nonmoving parents noncompliance, attorneys fees and costs and a civil award of not less than $250. The court may also imprison the noncomplying parent for up to 180 days in jail or until compliant.
Upon a further violation of the court-ordered residential schedule, the non-complying parent can be charged with custodial interference in the second degree. A parent may also be charged with custodial interference in the second degree if the parent has engaged in a pattern of wilful violations of the court-ordered residential provisions, or, if the parent takes the child with intent to deny access to the child from the parent entitled to access to the child under the parenting plan.
The court may consider modifying the residential parenting plan if the nonmoving party has been found in contempt of court at least twice within three years or has been convicted of custodial interference in the first or second degree. A conviction of first or second degree constitutes a substantial change of circumstances for purposes of modifying the parenting plan.
All court orders and orders of contempt must warn parents that violations could result in findings of contempt and custodial interference.
Defenses to custodial interference are modified to require a parent to contact police before taking a child in violation of the parenting plan order, and are expanded to include the defenses that the complainant consented to the act, the complainant had failed to exercise parental visitation rights for a protracted period, or, that access was denied due to the welfare of the child, provided the noncomplying parent made a good faith effort to notify the parent seeking time with the child and provided access to the child as soon as feasible.
Fiscal Note: Not Requested.
House Committee ‑ Testified For: Robert Radcliff, United Fathers and Mothers; Ellen White, Citizen; Robert Hoyden, Citizen; Samuel Porter, Sr., Citizen; Allan Rudberg, Washington Pro-Se Council; Mike Eckert, Citizen; Toni Bequette, Washington Coalition United Fathers and Mothers; Chris Webbers, Citizen.
House Committee - Testified Against: Barbara Baker, Puget Sound Legal Services; Lonnie Johns-Brown, NOW; Kevin Price, DADS.
House Committee - Testimony For: Tougher laws are necessary to coerce compliance with visitation schedules. Non-custodial parents are not protected under current law.
House Committee - Testimony Against: House Bill 2108 is preferable over SB 6009. SB 6009 removes judicial and prosecutorial discretion, imposes mandatory jail time and lacks certain defenses contained in HB 2108. SB 6009 is too harsh.