SB 5575
In CommitteeSenate
Parenting plan limitations
Concerning limitations in parenting plans.
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 strengthens protections for children by requiring courts to impose specific limitations on a parent’s residential time, decision-making authority, and dispute resolution options when the parent has engaged in serious harmful conduct—including sexual abuse, physical/emotional abuse, domestic violence, or willful abandonment. It also protects parents who act in good faith to protect their children and clarifies when restrictions can be lifted only under strict conditions.
- Requires courts to impose limitations on residential time, decision-making authority, and dispute resolution when a parent has engaged in serious harmful conduct—including sexual abuse of a child, physical or emotional abuse, domestic violence, or willful abandonment.
- Establishes a rebuttable presumption that a parent convicted of or found to have sexually abused a child poses a danger, and prohibits unsupervised contact unless specific, stringent conditions are met—including treatment completion, therapist recommendations, and two years of successful supervised contact.
- Expands restrictions to parents who knowingly reside with someone convicted or adjudicated of a sex offense against a child, requiring supervised contact or prohibiting contact unless rebuttal conditions are satisfied.
- Clarifies that 'protective actions' (e.g., reporting abuse to authorities, seeking restraining orders) do not constitute 'abusive use of conflict' and may not be used as grounds to limit a parent’s rights.
- Requires courts to consider specific factors—including risk of harm, past behavior, and compliance with treatment—when deciding whether to impose or lift limitations, and mandates detailed written findings for any deviation from mandatory restrictions.
Who is affected
- Parents with sex offense convictions or findings — Parents who have been convicted of or found to have committed sex offenses against children, or who live with someone who has such a conviction or finding, may face restrictions or prohibitions on residential time, decision-making authority, and dispute resolution options. They may be required to undergo treatment, complete psychosexual evaluations, or have supervised contact only.
- Children at risk of sexual abuse — Children who have been victims of sexual abuse by a parent or who may be exposed to someone who has committed sexual abuse may be protected through restrictions on contact, mandatory supervision, or complete prohibition of contact unless specific conditions are met.
- Protective parents — Parents who report abuse or take protective actions (e.g., seeking restraining orders, reporting to authorities) are protected from being labeled as engaging in 'abusive use of conflict' and may have their parenting time or decision-making authority preserved or expanded.
- Court-appointed professionals (e.g., guardians ad litem) — Guardians ad litem and other professionals involved in family court cases must have additional training related to identifying and responding to limiting factors, especially those involving abuse or sex offenses, and must follow new appointment and supervision protocols.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Explicitly defines 'protective actions' (e.g., reporting abuse, seeking restraining orders) as non-abusive and bars courts from using them as grounds to limit a parent’s rights—this protects parents (especially mothers and survivors) from being retaliated against or punished for acting in their child’s best interest, countering a well-documented pattern of abusive litigation and gaslighting in family court.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(e); Sec. 1(4)(c)(vi); Sec. 1(5)(a)Mandates supervised visitation or complete prohibition of contact for parents convicted of or found to have sexually abused a child, with strict conditions for rebutting the presumption—this significantly reduces the risk of re-abuse and protects children from ongoing harm. The requirement for psychosexual evaluations, treatment documentation, and therapist recommendations creates a high barrier to unsupervised access, especially for high-risk offenders.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b); Sec. 2(3)(b)Prohibits unsupervised contact between a parent and a child who was sexually abused by that parent, and creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent convicted of certain sex offenses poses a danger—this directly prevents known abusers from gaining unsupervised access, reducing the risk of reoffending and protecting vulnerable children during custody disputes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(iii), (iv); Sec. 2(1)Imposes restrictions on parents who knowingly reside with someone convicted or adjudicated of a sex offense against a child—this closes a dangerous loophole where abusers could operate through a sympathetic cohabitant, thereby extending protection to children in shared households.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b); Sec. 2(3)(a)Requires additional training for guardians ad litem in cases involving abuse or sex offenses and mandates use of a rotational registry to ensure qualified professionals are appointed—this improves the reliability and fairness of representation for children in high-risk cases, though implementation depends on state funding and training availability.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 8; Sec. 2
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates supervised visitation or complete prohibition of contact for parents convicted of or found to have sexually abused a child, with strict conditions for rebutting the presumption—this significantly reduces the risk of re-abuse and protects children from ongoing harm. The requirement for psychosexual evaluations, treatment documentation, and therapist recommendations creates a high barrier to unsupervised access, especially for high-risk offenders.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b); Sec. 2(3)(b)Explicitly defines 'protective actions' (e.g., reporting abuse, seeking restraining orders) as non-abusive and bars courts from using them as grounds to limit a parent’s rights—this protects parents (especially mothers and survivors) from being retaliated against or punished for acting in their child’s best interest, countering a well-documented pattern of abusive litigation and gaslighting in family court.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(e); Sec. 1(4)(c)(vi); Sec. 1(5)(a)Prohibits unsupervised contact between a parent and a child who was sexually abused by that parent, and creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent convicted of certain sex offenses poses a danger—this directly prevents known abusers from gaining unsupervised access, reducing the risk of reoffending and protecting vulnerable children during custody disputes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(iii), (iv); Sec. 2(1)Imposes restrictions on parents who knowingly reside with someone convicted or adjudicated of a sex offense against a child—this closes a dangerous loophole where abusers could operate through a sympathetic cohabitant, thereby extending protection to children in shared households.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b); Sec. 2(3)(a)Requires additional training for guardians ad litem in cases involving abuse or sex offenses and mandates use of a rotational registry to ensure qualified professionals are appointed—this improves the reliability and fairness of representation for children in high-risk cases, though implementation depends on state funding and training availability.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 8; Sec. 2
Who Is Most Affected
Children who are victims or potential victims of sexual abuse or domestic violence benefit significantly—this bill creates enforceable structural barriers to prevent re-abuse and ensures courts prioritize child safety over parental rights in high-risk cases.
Parents who report abuse or seek protective orders are shielded from being labeled as 'abusive'—this reduces retaliatory litigation and helps prevent the silencing of survivors, especially women and low-income caregivers who lack legal resources.
Parents convicted of or found to have sexually abused children face near-total barriers to unsupervised contact, with strict conditions for rebutting the presumption—this group is primarily negatively impacted, with very limited pathways to regain access.
Courts and supervision programs will face increased administrative and financial burdens due to mandatory evaluations, supervised visitation plans, and detailed written findings—though this improves child safety, it strains already limited family court resources.
Guardians ad litem must undergo additional training and follow stricter appointment protocols—while this improves case quality, it may increase workload and liability concerns, especially in rural districts with limited trained providers.