HB 2596
In CommitteeHouse
Lost parenting time
Restoring parenting time lost.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
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
This bill creates a new legal process to restore parenting time lost when one parent makes an unfounded allegation of child abuse or neglect against the other. If the allegation is later determined to be unfounded, the affected parent can go to court to get back the time they lost — and possibly more — and the court may penalize the parent who made the false claim. The bill also updates existing custody laws to reflect this new process and requires the state to inform people when investigations are closed without findings of abuse.
- Creates a new legal process allowing a 'denied parent' to file a motion to restore parenting time lost due to an unfounded abuse or neglect allegation made by the other parent.
- Requires courts to hold a hearing on the motion within 20 days of filing and to issue a decision within 30 days of filing.
- If the court finds the abuse/neglect allegation was unfounded, it must restore the lost parenting time and may award double the lost time if it finds the allegation was made solely to interfere with parenting time and doing so is in the child’s best interest.
- Mandates that restored and doubled time be scheduled proportionally across weekends, holidays, and school breaks, and completed within 12 months of the order.
- Authorizes courts to hold the alleging parent in contempt for failing to comply with the restoration order, with penalties including make-up time, reimbursement of legal costs, civil fines of $100–$500 per day of missed time, and up to 30 days in jail.
- Requires the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) to notify individuals when an abuse/neglect investigation is unfounded and include information about the new restoration process in that notice.
- Amends existing custody laws to create a legal presumption that restoring full or expanded parenting time is in the child’s best interest when an unfounded allegation is resolved — a presumption that can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of serious endangerment.
Who is affected
- Denied parents — Parents who had their court-ordered time with their child temporarily reduced, suspended, denied, or restricted due to an unfounded abuse/neglect allegation made by the other parent.
- Alleging parents — Parents who made allegations of child abuse or neglect that were later determined to be unfounded — they may face legal consequences, financial liability, and loss of parenting time if the court finds the allegations were made in bad faith.
- Children involved in the case — Children who lost parenting time with one parent due to an unfounded allegation; they may regain lost time and, in some cases, receive additional make-up time.
- Judicial and court personnel — Courts and court staff, who must prioritize and expedite hearings on restoration motions and enforce contempt remedies.
- DCYF investigators and case workers — Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) staff, who must notify individuals of unfounded findings and include information about restoration rights in those notices.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill provides a streamlined, low-barrier legal mechanism for parents wrongfully denied parenting time due to unfounded allegations to restore lost time — including up to double the lost time — and recover legal costs. This directly addresses the harm of being stripped of parental rights without due process, especially for low-income parents who cannot afford prolonged litigation to clear their names.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), (5), (6), (7)By requiring courts to presume restoration of full or expanded parenting time is in the child’s best interest when an unfounded allegation is resolved — and allowing only clear-and-convincing evidence of *serious endangerment* to rebut that presumption — the bill helps prevent long-term family fragmentation based on mere allegations, supporting child stability and emotional well-being.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(b), Sec. 2(14)The contempt enforcement mechanism (including make-up time, civil fines up to $500/day, and jail) gives teeth to restoration orders, deterring bad-faith noncompliance and helping ensure children regain lost time with the denied parent — directly benefiting child-parent bond continuity and emotional health.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(8)(a)-(e)Mandating DCYF notify subjects of unfounded investigations and include restoration-process information helps level the playing field for pro se parents, increasing awareness of legal rights and reducing the risk of repeated unfounded allegations being used as tactical tools in custody disputes.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 4(4)The judicial education module on false-allegation patterns, bias mitigation, and the new legal framework aims to improve consistency and fairness in parenting time decisions — potentially reducing judicial error and increasing trust in the system among litigants.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 5
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill creates a legal presumption that restoring expanded parenting time (including double time) is in the child’s best interest when an unfounded allegation is resolved — a presumption that can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of *serious endangerment*. This shifts the burden of proof in custody disputes and may pressure courts to prioritize parental rights over child safety in borderline cases, potentially exposing children to risk if allegations, while unfounded by DCYF, involved credible concerns that fell short of legal thresholds.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(a)-(b)While the bill requires the alleging parent to pay the denied parent’s legal fees and costs if the allegation is unfounded, this may discourage low- and middle-income parents from raising *genuine* concerns for fear of financial liability — especially if they lack legal representation or documentation. The risk of being ordered to pay up to $500/day in contempt fines (Sec. 1(8)(d)(iii)) may also deter parents from reporting new or evolving safety concerns post-investigation.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7)The 20-day hearing and 30-day decision deadlines (Sec. 1(3), (4)) may incentivize rushed judicial decisions or pressure judges to prioritize restoration over careful evaluation of risk — particularly in complex cases involving trauma, mental health, or conflicting expert testimony. Expedited timelines could reduce due process protections for both parents and children in high-conflict situations.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3), (4), (6), Sec. 2(14)The bill authorizes up to 30 days of jail for contempt of a restoration order, but only if the alleging parent is *presently able* to comply and *unwilling* — a high bar that may be difficult to prove. This risks over-criminalization of poverty (e.g., parents who cannot afford transportation for make-up time) and may disproportionately impact marginalized communities, especially where access to legal counsel or stable housing is limited.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(8)(e)DCYF must now include restoration-process information in unfounded finding notices, adding administrative burden to an already overburdened child welfare system — without new funding. This may delay or dilute attention to core child protection functions, especially in rural counties with limited staff.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(4)
Who Is Most Affected
Denied parents — especially low- and middle-income individuals without legal representation — are the primary beneficiaries. The bill provides a fast, low-cost path to restore lost time and recover costs, directly addressing harm from unfounded allegations. However, those with genuine safety concerns may hesitate to report due to fear of financial liability under the fee-shifting and contempt provisions.
Alleging parents who made unfounded allegations face significant financial and legal risk — including paying double the lost time, legal fees, civil fines up to $500/day, and potential jail. While this deters bad-faith litigation, it may also chill legitimate reports of abuse, especially by victims lacking documentation or legal advice.
Children benefit from timely restoration of lost parenting time and may gain additional make-up time, supporting emotional stability and continuity of care. However, expedited timelines and the presumption in favor of restoration could reduce judicial scrutiny of residual risk, potentially exposing some children to harm if concerns were merely *technically* unfounded but still salient.
Courts face increased caseloads and tight deadlines (20-day hearings, 30-day rulings), requiring judicial resources and potentially straining dockets. However, the streamlined process may reduce long-term litigation over custody modifications after unfounded findings, offsetting some burden.
DCYF staff must now include restoration-process information in unfounded finding notices — adding administrative work without new funding. This may divert resources from core child protection functions, especially in under-resourced regions, but also increases transparency and due process awareness for families.