ESHB 1620
SignedHouse
Parenting plan limitations
Concerning limitations in parenting plans.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
The bill tightens rules for parenting plans when a parent or household member has a history of sex offenses against children, abuse, domestic violence, or abusive litigation. It creates clearer standards for when courts must limit or prohibit residential time, require supervision, or restrict decision-making—always with the child’s safety as the top priority. It also protects parents who act in good faith to protect themselves or their children from harm.
- Clarifies and expands circumstances under which courts must limit or prohibit a parent’s residential time with a child—specifically when the parent or someone they reside with has been convicted of or found to have committed sex offenses against children, physical or emotional abuse, domestic violence, or willful abandonment.
- Establishes a rebuttable presumption that a parent convicted of a sex offense against a child—or who resides with someone who has—poses a present danger to the child, requiring the court to restrain contact unless the parent rebuts the presumption through specific findings and documentation (e.g., completion of sex offender treatment, therapist recommendations).
- Requires courts to impose supervised residential time in many cases involving sex offenses or abuse, and sets strict standards for approving supervisors—including requirements that they be neutral, independent, and willing and capable of protecting the child.
- Prohibits mutual decision-making and requires sole decision-making and court-only dispute resolution when a parent has engaged in certain harmful conduct, including sex offenses, domestic violence, or abusive litigation.
- Adds new definitions—including “abusive use of conflict” (e.g., repeated bad-faith violations of court orders, threats, or abusive litigation) and “protective actions” (e.g., reporting abuse to authorities, seeking protection orders)—to clarify when limitations apply and when protective behavior is protected from being labeled abusive.
- Strengthens rules for guardians ad litem in family law cases, requiring additional training for those handling cases involving allegations of abuse or sex offenses, and establishing a rotational registry system for appointments.
Who is affected
- Parents with sex offense convictions or findings of sexual abuse — Parents who have been convicted of or found to have committed sex offenses against children, or who reside with someone who has, may face restrictions or prohibitions on residential time with their children, and may be required to complete treatment or meet other conditions before any contact is allowed.
- Children at risk of sexual abuse or other harm — Children who are victims of sexual abuse, or who may be at risk of harm due to a parent's or household member's history of sexual abuse or other harmful conduct, are the primary focus of protections in the bill.
- Parents facing allegations of harmful or abusive conduct — Parents who are accused of abusive conduct—including domestic violence, emotional or physical abuse, or abusive litigation—may face limitations on residential time, decision-making authority, and dispute resolution options.
- Guardians ad litem and professional supervisors — Guardians ad litem and professional supervisors of residential time must meet new training and qualification standards, and may be subject to stricter oversight when cases involve allegations of abuse or sex offenses.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill significantly strengthens protections for children by establishing clear, mandatory restrictions on residential time and decision-making when a parent or household member has a history of sex offenses against children or other abuse. The rebuttable presumption framework shifts the burden to the parent to prove safety, reducing the risk of children being placed in dangerous environments during parenting plan proceedings.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)–(3)The bill explicitly protects parents who act in good faith to protect themselves or their children—e.g., by reporting abuse, seeking protection orders, or limiting contact in emergencies—from being labeled as engaging in 'abusive use of conflict.' This prevents abusers from weaponizing litigation against protective parents, a common tactic in domestic violence cases.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(b) & (e)The bill mandates supervised residential time in cases involving sex offenses or abuse, with strict standards for supervisor neutrality, independence, and child-protection capacity. This reduces the risk of reoffending or harm during unsupervised contact and ensures that supervision is provided by qualified professionals rather than untrained family members.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(iv) & Sec. 2(2)(a)The bill prohibits mutual decision-making and requires sole decision-making and court-only dispute resolution when a parent has engaged in harmful conduct—including sex offenses, domestic violence, or abusive litigation. This prevents abusers from using shared decision-making as a tool of continued control or harassment.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)The bill defines 'abusive use of conflict' more precisely—including abusive litigation, repeated bad-faith violations of court orders, and threats—and clarifies that protective actions (e.g., reporting abuse) are *not* abusive. This reduces ambiguity for courts and helps prevent misuse of legal processes to intimidate protective parents or silence disclosures of abuse.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill creates a near-absolute bar to contact between a parent and a child if the parent was convicted of a sex offense against *any* child—even if the child in the current case was not the victim—unless the parent completes costly treatment and meets high evidentiary burdens. This effectively bans many parents from seeing their own children for years, even decades, with no guarantee of reunification, regardless of rehabilitation or risk assessment. The standard is stricter than for other serious crimes and applies retroactively to prior convictions, regardless of time elapsed or changed circumstances.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)The bill imposes a rebuttable presumption that a parent who resides with someone convicted of a child sex offense poses a danger to the child—even if the parent has no involvement in the offense, has no criminal record, and can demonstrably protect the child. Rebutting this presumption requires expensive psychosexual evaluations, therapy documentation, and therapist approvals that many low- and middle-income families cannot afford, effectively making the restriction permanent for many families.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a) & (b)The bill allows unsupervised contact only after two years of supervised visits *and* no further arrests or convictions—regardless of actual risk level or treatment progress. This rigid timeline may delay reunification even for low-risk individuals who have completed treatment and pose minimal threat, while not accounting for recidivism risk assessments or dynamic risk factors, potentially undermining long-term public safety by delaying reintegration into supportive environments.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(c)(iv)The bill’s restrictions on residential time may force parents subject to limitations to live separately from their children, increasing housing instability for both parents and children—especially for low-income families who cannot afford dual households or supervised visitation logistics. In rural areas with limited professional supervision, families may be unable to comply with supervision requirements, de facto separating children from parents.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(4)The bill mandates new training and a rotational registry for guardians ad litem (GALs), but provides no new funding. Courts may struggle to staff qualified GALs, especially in rural counties, leading to delays, underqualified appointments, or overburdened GALs—potentially reducing the quality of child advocacy in high-risk cases where it’s most needed.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 8
Who Is Most Affected
Parents with prior sex offense convictions face near-total barriers to contact with their children unless they complete expensive, court-ordered treatment and meet high evidentiary standards. Many will be permanently separated from their children, especially if low-income and unable to afford psychosexual evaluations or long-term therapy. This group is disproportionately impacted by the rebuttable presumption framework.
Children are the primary intended beneficiaries: the bill creates stronger safeguards against exposure to abusive adults, mandates professional supervision in high-risk cases, and protects them from being used as leverage in abusive litigation. However, some children may be harmed by prolonged separation from a parent who has completed treatment and poses low risk.
Low- and middle-income parents may be unable to afford the required psychosexual evaluations ($2,000–$5,000), supervised visitation fees, or long-term therapy, effectively locking them out of reunification pathways. This creates a two-tiered system where wealthier parents can rebut presumptions while poorer parents cannot. The bill does not allocate funding to offset these costs.
Guardians ad litem face new training requirements and a rotational registry system, which may improve quality in urban areas but strain rural programs lacking resources. Supervisors of residential time must meet stricter neutrality and capability standards, increasing demand for professional (paid) supervisors over family members—potentially raising costs for courts and families.
Courts and child welfare agencies will face increased administrative and financial burdens: more complex hearings, mandatory supervision plans, professional evaluations, and GAL appointments. The bill explicitly states it may increase costs but provides no funding source, potentially diverting resources from other high-need family law cases.