SB 5706
In CommitteeSenate
Child custody determinations
Determining child custody.
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 and non-abusive parents in custody cases by requiring courts to prioritize safety, use current scientific research on domestic violence and child abuse, and ensure only qualified experts provide input. It mandates specific procedures when abuse is alleged—including early hearings, supervised visitation for abusive parents, and limits on mental health evaluations—while prohibiting outdated or unscientific practices.
- Child safety and health must be the top priority in all custody decisions.
- Professionals advising courts on custody must have specialized training and experience in domestic violence and child abuse—including understanding lethality risks, dynamics, and effects on children—and must consult with experts if they lack this expertise.
- A mental health degree alone does not prove domestic violence expertise; courts must consider other qualified professionals without degrees who have relevant training and experience.
- Courts should not order mental health evaluations in custody cases unless there’s a substantial reason to believe a mental health issue affects parenting ability—but must allow input from domestic violence experts when abuse is alleged.
- When domestic violence is proven by a preponderance of evidence, the non-abusive parent must receive sole custody; the abusive parent may only have supervised visitation, and must complete a 6-month accountability program and demonstrate full accountability before unsupervised visits are considered.
- Courts must use current scientific research on domestic violence and reject unscientific or outdated practices—including those from 'high conflict' models that may endanger children in abuse cases.
- In cases with allegations of child sexual abuse, evaluators must have at least five years of specialized experience, and recantations by children do not automatically disprove abuse; courts must carefully consider all evidence, including good-faith mistakes or incomplete information.
- Courts must hold an early evidentiary hearing on domestic violence allegations before appointing neutral professionals, and may not ignore later evidence if initial findings deny abuse.
- Appellate courts must independently review cases where trial judges used gender-biased or otherwise flawed practices, rather than deferring to their judgment.
- Judges, guardians ad litem, and other court personnel must receive ongoing specialized training on domestic violence and child abuse, and advocates must provide those trainings.
Who is affected
- Children — Parents involved in custody disputes, especially those raising concerns about domestic violence or child abuse, are protected from being penalized for good faith complaints and may receive priority in custody determinations when safety is at risk.
- Court-appointed professionals (e.g., guardians ad litem, evaluators, mental health professionals) — Professionals providing expert testimony or evaluations in custody cases (e.g., psychologists, social workers, guardians ad litem) must now meet stricter qualifications and training requirements related to domestic violence and child abuse.
- Judges and court personnel — Courts must change how they handle custody cases involving domestic violence or child abuse—including requiring specialized training, limiting certain evaluations, and prioritizing safety over outdated practices.
- Domestic violence advocacy organizations and trained advocates — Domestic violence service providers and advocates may receive new funding to train court personnel and serve as expert witnesses in custody cases.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Prioritizes child safety and prohibits penalizing good-faith abuse complaints—addressing well-documented failures in family courts where victims (especially women and children) were punished for reporting abuse, leading to increased risk of re-victimization or homicide.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (7), (9)Requires court-advised professionals to have specialized, evidence-based training in domestic violence and child abuse—including non-degree holders with lived or frontline experience—reducing reliance on unqualified or biased experts who have historically misapplied outdated 'high conflict' models to abuse cases.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), (3), (4), (11)Mandates supervised visitation for abusive parents and prohibits shared parenting in cases with substantiated risk—aligning with national best practices (e.g., NASW, ABA) to prevent child fatalities in custody disputes, especially where abusers have previously violated court orders.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6), (8)Requires ongoing judicial and GAL training on domestic violence science and mandates advocacy-led trainings—addressing systemic gaps where judges and court personnel were trained in outdated or gender-biased practices, contributing to high-profile failures in child homicide cases.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(12)(a), (13)(a)Authorizes state funding for domestic violence agencies to train and certify advocates as expert witnesses—creating new paid roles and capacity in community-based service providers, especially benefiting small nonprofits serving marginalized populations.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(13)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates specialized training for judges and guardians ad litem, which increases administrative and operational costs for counties and courts—especially smaller or rural jurisdictions with limited budgets and staffing—potentially diverting funds from other essential court functions.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(12)(b)Requires state-funded training for domestic violence advocates to serve as court experts, which may strain county-level court systems that lack capacity to coordinate or absorb new expert testimony workflows, especially in low-resource areas.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(13)(b)While intended to protect safety, the bill’s strict structural constraints on custody arrangements—including mandatory supervised visitation and 6-month accountability requirements—may reduce procedural flexibility for parents with complex histories (e.g., mutual allegations, recovery from addiction), potentially limiting parental rights in nuanced cases.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5), (6), (8)Requires early evidentiary hearings on domestic violence before appointing neutral professionals, increasing case processing time and court congestion in high-volume family courts—particularly burdensome in counties already facing backlogs.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(9)Prohibits negative inferences from uncharged or unfounded allegations—even when no charges were filed due to insufficient evidence—may unintentionally discourage prosecutorial or CPS involvement in borderline cases, reducing accountability for actual abusers in gray-area situations.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(11)
Who Is Most Affected
Children in high-conflict custody cases—especially those living with or exposed to domestic violence—benefit significantly from structural safeguards that prioritize safety over parental rights, reduce retraumatization, and prevent custody awards to abusive parents. Evidence shows children in supervised-visitation outcomes have lower rates of re-abuse and improved long-term mental health.
Survivors of domestic violence (often mothers) gain stronger legal protections against being penalized for reporting abuse, and increased likelihood of sole custody when abuse is proven—reducing risk of child abduction, homicide, and coercive control post-separation. However, those without resources to access qualified experts may still face procedural hurdles.
Abusive parents (especially those with patterned violence or coercive control) face stricter requirements for unsupervised access, including mandatory accountability programs and burden of proof for safety—aligning with risk-assessment standards but potentially limiting parental rights in cases with partial compliance or denial.
Court-appointed professionals (GALs, evaluators) face new qualification standards and training mandates, which may raise barriers to entry for underrepresented or non-traditional experts but also improve reliability and reduce liability in high-risk cases. Smaller counties may struggle to find qualified substitutes.
Domestic violence advocacy organizations gain new funding and formalized roles as court experts, expanding their influence and capacity—but also increasing administrative and legal accountability for expert testimony, potentially straining small agencies without legal support infrastructure.