Opposition to HB 1121 (link to full document prepared by a nonprofit family law firm is here)
HB 1121 adopts the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act into Title 26 RCW. Upon brief analysis of the bill, this memo recommends that this bill not be adopted.
Summary of HB 1121
Does not require a judicial search of relevant databases to determine if either the petitioner or respondent has a history of domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse or neglect.
The factors to support a court’s finding of a credible risk of abduction are overly broad, vague, and encompass normal acts for which there are common and reasonable explanations as to why a parent might engage in those activities (for example, activities routine for a parent to take in the context of a separation and divorce: terminating a lease, closing bank accounts, obtaining medical, education, or medical records).
The narrowing of geographic regions expands the discretion of the court to issue ex parte custody orders when a safe parent has family residing in another state, is from another state, etc. Further, it is a well-known tactic by abuser parents to “isolate” their victims from family and friends – including that an abuser parent will relocate the victim parent to a state other than the one in which the victim’s family and friends reside to maximize their influence and control.
The “cultural ties” language – “lack of” to the United States, and “has strong” for another country – is a fundamentally racially and culturally insensitive factor. Generally, this factor weighs strongly against protective parents of color and even more strongly against immigrants to the United States who maintain relationships and ties to their place of origin.
The bill shifts the burden of proof to a survivor parent if an abuser petitions. The current version of the bill is being marketed as making explicit that if there are any indicia of domestic violence, the abuser will not be able to use this law to prevent the victim from escaping to safety for the victim and the victim's child. However, the bill does not say how it does not apply.
Includes negative implications for survivor parents to be ordered to disclose contact and residential information to their abusers.
Invites further abusive custody litigation in our family court systems by granting another pre- and post-trial cause of action an abuser can bring to shift the burden and focus away from his domestic violence and onto the actions and relationships of a survivor parent.
Attorneys’ fees provision does not mitigate the potential harm that may result from the filing of an abduction prevention order which far exceeds the financial cost to survivor parents (many self-represented).
Seeks to impose punishment upon a parent prior to the commission of any wrongful or illegal act.
The need for this bill is questionable.