Attached is current research supporting the approach taken in the House Striker ESHB 1620. As you read, you will find that the proposed striking amendment that you will read in committee Thursday morning (which is identical to SHB 1620) is dangerous for children.
This includes research cited by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in their revised Model Code on Domestic and Family Violence (2022). Chapters 402 (Best Interests) and Chapter 403 (Rebuttable Presumption) are separately attached (see Commentary for cited Research), but the entire Model Code addressing other future provisions can be accessed here: https://ncjfcj.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Revised-Ch.-4-Model-Code_Nov-2024-1-1.pdf
Of note: The following subsections in Sec. 1 of House Striker ESHB 1620, are all copied from the Model Code.
(1) (Purpose)
(4) (Domestic Abuse Factors)
(5) (Matters Not to be Considered Against an Abused Parent)
(6) (Mutual Allegations of Domestic Abuse)
(7)(e) (Allowing Access)
(9)(a) (Limitations a Court May Impose on a Parent's Residential TIme When there is a Finding of ABuse)
(10)(a) (Determination Not to Impose Limitations on Residential Time - Determining Whether the Presumption is REbutted)
10(b) (Requirement for Specific Findings on the REcord)
10(c) (Once the Presumption has been Rebutted)
The following subsections in Sec. 6 of House Striker ESHB 1620, are all copied from the Model Code.
(3)(b-d) (Residential Provisions)
Second, I'm including the federal Violence Against Women Act "Findings" and "Purpose" for the "Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act," adopted by Congress in 2022. The Findings are citations to research.
Third, the United Nations Special Rappeteur issued a report and findings on the concerning use of "parental alienation" claims cross alleged when there is abuse in family court matters. Its proxy in Washington State is Abusive use of Conflict.
Finally, Joan Meier's research study on similar claims in family court is also attached, which supports ESHB 1620's strict mandatory protections on findings of child abuse and child sexual abuse.
"Even when courts find that fathers have abused the children or the mother, they award them custody 13% of the time. And in cases with credited child physical abuse claims, abusers still win custody 20% of the time (Table 3). It is also notable that when mothers allege mixed types of child abuse (both sexual and physical) their custody losses increase dramatically, from under 30% up to 50% (Table 2). ...Child sexual abuse, in particular, appears to be virtually impossible to prove (only 1 case out of 51 was believed) when a father defends with an alienation claim (Table 4)." In Washington State, Abusive use of Conflict is proxy for alienation claims. ESHB 1620 stops this cycle of abuse.
The House Striker ESHB 1620 is based on addressing the problems this research identifies, as well as the lived experience of the survivors you heard testify (and many others).
What research supports the original bill (SHB 1620)?
Please read Thursdays re-striker amendment carefully, one of the several harmful provisions is that it removes the supervision requirements if a parent has been found to have raped a child if the finding is in family court (see page 9, paragraph k, the supervision requirement is removed and not replaced). There are many more problems with the striker which is available at https://www.payes.org/legislative-materials
Two of the attachments below are also available online:
The Meier, U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving Alienation is also available online here.
The UN Human Rights Council Custody, Violence against women and violence against children available online here.
Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act
Model Code Chapter 402 Best interest of the child
Model Code Chapter 403 Rebuttable Presumptions