Wouldn’t you feel a lot safer in court if the judge was required to protect you and your children without you having to hire an attorney to convince the judge to do so?

Most child custody cases are governed by the RCW 26.09.187 statute, but when there is domestic abuse, RCW 26.09.191 (or the 191 statute) comes into play.  In 2025 our legislature is considering two drastically different bills, SHB 1620 and ESHB 1620:

SHB 1620’s structure is designed to equate domestic abuse with non-abuse factors, such as emotional impairment and abusive use of conflict.  These non-abuse factors can be labeled on nearly any behavior and used to give custody to the abusive parent.

ESHB 1620’s structure moves the non-abuse factors from the 191 statute so that abusive parents cannot downplay abuse. Abuse must be considered first.

SHB 1620 allows a judge to remove all contact from the non-abusive parent, or make contact contingent on unaffordable, unnecessary supervision, treatments and evaluations.

ESHB 1620 requires the non-abusive parent receives majority custody and to create a protective parenting plan if the abusive parent gets residential time.

SHB 1620 contains no requirements or instructions on how to evaluate domestic abuse. Simply refers to the definition of domestic violence in another statute.

ESHB 1620 requires the judge to consider several domestic abuse factors and provides instructions for doing so in addition to referencing our current definition of domestic violence.

SHB 1620’s language and structure gives judges nearly total authority, so that there’s very little avenue for oversight. Written findings are required but can be based on anything.

ESHB 1620’s language and structure provides multiple avenues for oversight and helps to solve both failed and false domestic abuse findings by mandating the court make considerations and protections for the child.

SHB 1620 removes the supervision requirement for a child rapist’s residential time/contact with the child.  Removes all remaining safeguards for the siblings of the child who was raped by that parent.

ESHB 1620 stops child rape before it happens by protecting the siblings.  Keeps current statutes protections, plus stops forcing child rape victims to have visits with their rapist.

SHB 1620 removes the requirement that a judge cannot allow an abusive parent to engage in coercive control via forced shared decision making.

ESHB 1620 keeps current statute’s decision making protections, goes further to specify that the non-abusive parent gets decision making.

SHB merges non-abuse factors with abuse creates false identification of the primary aggressor.

ESHB 1620 solves the mutual abuse allegation fallacy by requiring an evidentiary hearing with required considerations.

SHB 1620 is harmful for pro se parents and their children, because it allows an aggressive attorney/opposing party to out-maneuver the other parent.

ESHB is pro se friendly because the judge is required to protect the child.

SHB 1620 is written by family court judges. Written mainly by Superior Court Judges Association with a few edits from Washington State Bar Association, Sexual Violence Law Center, King County Bar Association and Northwest Justice Project. Not based on science or research.

ESHB 1620 is written by child safety experts.  Compiled by a Washington State expert attorney at trial and appellate level in the RCW 26.09.191 statute.  Based on research from the National Council of Juvenile Family Court Judges’ 2022 The Model Code which had input from over 16 national experts in abuse custody cases, federal Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act legislation adopted by Congress, the most protective provisions from the original bill, and the current statute’s protections (written by professors, lawyers and psychologists).

SHB 1620 abuse survivor supporters who showed up in in person in Olympia to support SHB 1620 and/or oppose ESHB 1620: Zero.

ESHB 1620 abuse survivor supporters who showed up in person in Olympia to oppose SHB 1620 and/or support ESHB 1620: Sixteen total.  8 to oppose SHB 1620, 12 to support ESHB 1620.  20 total, but 4 came to both hearings.