Clallam County Bar

Clallam County lawyers & legal news

Angeles Mediation

Avoid Court. Reduce costs. Quick results.

The alternative to going to court

Angeles Mediation

Family Law

Free Legal Clinic June 15 2019

Clallam and Jefferson County Probono Lawyers Presents: Free Legal Clinic

This general legal clinic runs from 12PM to 2PM at the Masonic Lodge in Port Angeles, 622 South Lincoln Street, and provides a free, drop in, legal advice clinic, for low income residents of Clallam and Jefferson Counties. Participants will have the opportunity for a free one on one consultation with an attorney who can address questions regarding the following topics:

Child Support
Landlord/Tenant
Creditor/Bankruptcy
Foreclosure

Dissolution
Domestic Violence
Wills & Estate Planning

Custody
Public Assistance
Employment

Those interested in participating in this event should bring to the clinic, all relevant paperwork regarding their legal matter or questions.

For more information, please call or email: 360-504-2422; [email protected]

For those interested in volunteering their time, please contact Shauna Rogers McClain.

Study: how to change DV behaviors


The Process of Primary Desistance From Intimate Partner Violence suggests three things people can do to reduce domestic violence behaviors and the thinking patterns that drive the behaviors. To reduce coercive control behaviors, people and remove external stressors, promote stability in their life, and develop a supportive environment.

Quick escape to Google.com

In my view, from a psychological, developmental, and attachment perspective, one of the main challenges is discovering what the “external” stressors are, because they likely involve internal stressors related to their experience as a child. It is not easy to discover and address the deeply seated stressors. Obvious stressors include financial issues, unclear communication patterns, poor sleep, etc. Less obvious stressors are subjectively perceived dangers.

Common dangers for people who tend to engage in coercively controlling behavior, and which drive internal stress and external behavior include:

  • Abandonment, and being alone,
  • Not being in conflict,
  • Not being true to one’s own feelings, even if in conflict with other people’s desires,
  • Not attending to relationships, letting important people not attend to oneself,
  • Believing that others will do as they say,
  • Ambiguous reactions by others,
  • Compromise, and
  • Delaying gratification

From an attachment perspective, it would likely also be necessary for the person to develop understandings of what constitutes danger to them, and new strategies for how they respond to perceived danger. What these changes might look like will be different in any individual case. Absent such fundamental changes, concern should remain about the likelihood of significant changes in coercive control behavior and the underlying thinking patterns.

Quick escape to Google.com

The Process of Primary Desistance From Intimate Partner Violence Kate Walker, Erica Bowen, Sarah Brown
Violence Against Women, First Published August 15, 2017 Research Article Abstract
This study examined the interaction between structure and agency for individuals in the first or early phase of primary desistance (1 year offending free) from intimate partner violence (IPV). Narrative accounts of perpetrators, survivors, and IPV program facilitators were analyzed using Thematic Analysis. Changes in the self and the contexts, structures, and conditions were necessary to promote desistance. Perpetrators made behavioral and cognitive changes taking on different identities (agentic role) by removing external stressors and instability within the confines of a supportive environment (structural role). Findings provide a theoretical framework of desistance from IPV that integrates social processes and subjective change.

Copyright Mark Baumann, 2019

Study: DV increases during major sporting events –reasons and solutions

Research shows that domestic violence increases during times of major sporting events such as the world cup. Reasons that are often cited include increased tension, investment in the outcome, disappointment, adrenaline, and intoxication. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/football/world-cup-domestic-violence-united-kingdom-campaign-trnd/index.html. From our perspective, this is best understood from attachment and rejection theory perspectives.

Quick escape to Google.com

Attachment perspective. Domestic violence is associated with adults who have an affectively-oriented attachment structure, or a “C” pattern. These patterns tend to rely, to one degree or another, on affective information, rather than cognitive information to guide thoughts and behavior. That is, feelings, especially “elicited negative feelings” in the body provide the neural system with preferred information, and intense feelings tend to drive intense thoughts and behaviors. Intense feeling can override cognitive information, such as the thought “I should control my feelings because if I don’t I might do something I will regret.” (Crittenden, Patricia M., and Spieker, Susan, J., (2018), Can attachment inform decision-making in child protection and forensic settings?, Infant Mental Health Journal, 39:6, 625-641.)

Rejection theory perspective. From a social science rejection theory perspective, attachment C-patterns can involve the increased likelihood of angry responses to relationship threats, increased history of relationship abuse, increased feelings of jealousy, a tendency to perceive partners in a negative light, and struggle between wanting and avoiding intimacy. These are all elements common to people who tend to be sensitive to rejection and respond with aggression. There are two types of relational rejections that are important to understand. Perceived low relational evaluation: a person may feel rejected when their perceived relational evaluation is not as high as they desire (even though they may recognize they are valued, liked, or accepted). Relational devaluation: a person may feel particularly rejected when they experience a subjective, sudden and dramatic devaluation in a relationship. (Leary, Mark R., Twenge. Jean M., Quinlivan, Erin, (2006), Interpersonal rejection as a determinate of anger and aggression, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10:2, 111-132.

As noted in the CNN article above, expectations and the game’s outcome can make a difference. A 2010 British study found that violence spiked during the World Cup tournament only if the English team won or lost, not if the game ended in a draw. In a 2015 British study, violence spiked if expectations were high –either because of who was playing, where the games was played or because of the significance of the match.

Quick escape to Google.com

Putting the data and theory together. We can see that when a person evaluates their own self-worth based on the performance of a sporting team, and when they have an affective-oriented personality structure, they may be more susceptible to act upon intense feelings and less able to manage those feelings whether the team wins or loses, and/or if their expectation for the game outcome is set too high.

What can be done? Armed with foreknowledge about the risks, people with partners who tend to use attachment C-pattern behaviors (or people who tend to exhibit difficulty controlling their emotions and coercive control behaviors) can anticipate and be proactive. The studies suggest people can help put the games in a healthy context, provide healthy outlets to let off steam, be mindful to eat healthy food and moderate alcohol consumption, and keep a focus on positive places, people, events and things that elicit positive rather than negative feelings. For partners of these people, they can be be mindful about other potential relational challenges and rejections: they can be careful to avoid bringing up difficult issues, put off sensitive topics, redirect people whose behavior is escalating, or if sensitive issues cannot be avoided address them in a structured way or with helpful third parties present.

From a longer term perspective, it may be helpful to work with their partners to develop a good set of skills for:

  • Managing emotions, such as by recognizing and labeling emotions (neurobiological drives) and feelings (the outcome of the neurobiological impulse),
  • Learning to accept and talk about feelings,
  • Develop mindfulness techniques,
  • Partners may want to model such techniques and engage in practices like yoga and exercise to encourage partners to do the same.
Quick escape to Google.com

Judges can support partners who are struggling to manage their partner/co-parent’s coercive behaviors. A few simple examples for how judges can do this include:

  • Being respectful to all parties even as boundaries are held,
  • Modeling affect management on the bench (not allowing a judge’s own emotions to rage),
  • Enunciating behavioral expectations in a non-judgmental and non-humiliating way.
  • Encouraging people who appear to use coercive strategies to engage in known emotion management activities and then demonstrate to the court their efforts to learn and apply learned skills.

Mark Baumann copyright 2019

Study: coercive control can continue after divorce

“I Was Naive in Thinking: ‘I Divorced This Man, He Is Out of My Life’.” That is the title of a study which identified 9 different ways a spouse might continue to control the other spouse after divorce.

The most common themes to emerge from the narratives were, in order of prevalence, as follows:

  • Using the Children;
  • Using Threats, Harassment, and Intimidation;
  • Emotional Abuse;
  • Economic Abuse;
  • “Stuff to Try to Hurt Me”;
  • Disrupting Her Relationships With the Children;
  • Using the System; and
  • Physical Violence.

The findings are not surprising to professionals who work with victims of domestic violence (coercive control).

Quick escape to Google.com

The study found that “many women” simply give up everything just to get out. For some people, men and women, “walking away” is a reasonable option, and even a best option in some cases. For people ready to stand up for themselves, and who are not willing to simply walk away, obtaining help in court is possible if the judge is aware of the nature and persistence of coercive control. For people thinking about standing up for themselves, help can be obtained from any domestic violence agency, mental health professionals, and informed lawyers. Religious leaders, teachers, coaches, employers, friends, may or may not have awareness of the persistent dynamics of domestic violence.

“I Was Naive in Thinking, ‘I Divorced This Man, He Is Out of My Life’”: A Qualitative Exploration of Post-Separation Power and Control Tactics Experienced by Women
Michelle L. Toews, Autumn M. Bermea
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol 32, Issue 14, 2017
First Published June 18, 2015

Quick escape to Google.com

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore women’s perceptions of the power and control tactics used by their former husbands post-separation. A total of 22 in-depth interviews with divorced mothers who reported male-initiated partner abuse (psychological and/or physical) during and/or after their marriages were analyzed. The most common themes to emerge from the narratives were, in order of prevalence, as follows: Using the Children; Using Threats, Harassment, and Intimidation; Emotional Abuse; Economic Abuse; “Stuff to Try to Hurt Me”; Disrupting Her Relationships With the Children; Using the System; and Physical Violence. We also found that the violent and coercive behaviors men used during the marriage continued to influence the women’s perceptions of the power and control their former husbands had over them post-separation. As a result, many of the women described how they gave up everything just to get out of their abusive marriages.

Court sees through bully’s story, wife’s slap appropriate

An abuser went too far and his wife slapped him, so he sought a restraining order. The court said no, her slap was an instinctive reaction to discovering his long-term lying about not having an affair.

In Fischer vs. Fischer, a California case, the wife caught the husband having an affair. He apologized a “million times” telling her it was over and that it had been a short term thing. She forgave him and they tried to work things out, and went to marital therapy. Months later, the wife saw his phone ringing and saw a picture of his mistress. She looked at the phone and saw numerous text messages indicating they not only were still having an affair, but had been doing so for a long time. As she was discovering the depth of his deception, he came into the room, hovered a foot from her face and snatched the phone from her hand. When he demanded to know what she was doing, she swore at him and slapped him.

Quick escape to Google.com

The husband took the offensive and filed for protection order seeking the court’s protection from his abusive wife, and intense custody litigation ensued. At trial, the judge found that the wife’s actions were not an intentional assault, rather an instinctive, in the heat of the moment act, and refused to grant the husband’s request for a restraining order, and also refused to grant the husband’s request that the wife undergo a parenting fitness evaluation. The husband appealed and lost again.

When the wife initially caught him having an affair, he took the initiative then too, filing for divorce. But as is often the case, she begged him not to leave and they reconciled.

Of course there was more to the story, as is usually the situation in these types of cases. The wife provided evidence of a pattern of coercive control by the husband. He was much larger than her, and he constantly got angry and pushed her, spat on her, threw water on her, grabbed her and moved her around, and tossed her across the bed.

Quick escape to Google.com

DV and patterns of coercive control are driven by a person’s fundamental way of solving all problems with coercive behaviors. Aggressive tactics in litigation can be an indicator confirming a person’s use of coercive control. In this case, the husband took the unusual step of filing an appeal. He had requested a five-year restraining order based on the one incident of the wife slapping him. Both the trial court and the court of appeals saw through his aggression and denied his requests.

Washington’s law is similar. At a domestic violence protection order hearing, the court “may” grant an order, or not. Also, an assault must be an intentional act.

The full opinion from the appellate court can be accessed here.

Coercive control and emotional abuse illegal in U.K., France, Ireland –and Clallam?

Ireland joined the United Kingdom and France extending the definition of domestic violence to include emotional abuse and coercive control. The definitions in these countries expand the basis for a protection order and criminalize coercive control. Washington State law is not quite as clear, but for non-criminal cases is consistent with these European jurisdictions. Understanding coercive control, or more importantly what drives the controlling behavior, and applying protections by judicial officers in rural communities is not easy.

On January 1, 2019, Ireland enacted the Domestic Violence Act 2018, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/6/enacted/en/html.

Quick escape to Google.com

Part 2 of the act enumerates a list of factors courts “shall have regard to”. Beyond the usual factors, such as fear for personal safety, history of violence, access to weapons, and substance abuse, they include:

  • “any evidence of deterioration in the physical, psychological or emotional welfare of the applicant or a dependent person which is caused directly by fear of the behaviour of the respondent;”
  • “whether the applicant is economically dependent on the respondent;”
  • “the applicant’s perception of the risk to his or her own safety or welfare due to the behaviour of the respondent;”
  • “any recent separation between the applicant and the respondent;”
  • “any destruction or damage caused by the respondent to” the petitioner’s personal property or residence;”

The French Parliament “adopted Law 2010-769, of July 9, 2010, on Violence Against Women, Violence Between Spouses, and the Effects of These Types of Violence on Children * * * [which] contains several criminal provisions aimed at reinforcing the fight against familial violence, including psychological violence.” http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/france-law-on-violence-against-women/.

In England, the offence of controlling or coercive behavior is defined in Section 76(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015:

“A person (A) commits an offence if–
(a) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person (B) that is controlling or coercive,
(b) at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected,
(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and
(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaivour will have a serious effect on B.”

Although not a law, a cross-government definition of domestic violence and abuse is provided in a Statutory Guidance Framework for Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship, by the Home Office:

“Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacties for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.

“Coercive behaviour is: a continuing act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”

Quick escape to Google.com

In 2014, the European Union Agency for Fundamental rights (FRA) conducted a survey of violence against women by interviewing 42,000 women in EU member countries. Consistent with studies in other countries, violence against women is common.

“What emerges is a picture of extensive abuse that affects many women’s lives, but is systematically underreported to the authorities.”


FRA survey, at page 3.

“One in three women (32%) has experienced psychologically abusive behaviour by an intimate partner either by her current partner or previous partner. This includes behaviour such as belittling or humiliating the respondent in public or private; forbidding her to leave the house or locking her up; making her watch pornographic material against your wishes; scaring or intimidating her on purpose; and threatening her with violence were threatening to hurt someone else the respondent cares about.”

“Overall, 43% of women have experienced some form of psychological violence by an intimate partner, which includes other forms of abuse alongside psychologically abusive behavior. This may include psychologically abusive behavior and other forms of psychological violence such as controlling behavior (for example trying to keep the respondent from seeing her friends or visiting her family or relatives), economic violence (such as forbidding a woman to work outside the home) and blackmail.”

FRA survey at 71, from Main Findings of Psychological Partner Violence
Quick escape to Google.com

The FRA survey broke down the results by country.

“In [the FRA] survey on violence against women, almost a third of Irish women (31%) said they had experienced psychological abuse by a partner. A further 23% of respondents said they had experienced controlling behavior, 24% said they had experienced abusive behavior, and 12% said they had experienced stalking (including online stalking).”

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/health/ireland-coercive-control-domestic-abuse-intl/index.html

In Washington State (and presumably all U.S. states) coercive control behaviors are not a crime. However, the law, and the Washington Courts’ Domestic Violence Bench Guide for Judicial Officers (revised 2015), make it clear that protection orders can and should be issued based on this type of behavior. The Bench Guide defines domestic violence conduct in terms of both purely legal and also behavioral conduct. Behavioral domestic violence is defined as involving a pattern of assaultive and coercive behaviors including physical, sexual, and psychological attacks, as well as economic coercion. Bench Guide at 2-4.

“Using both the Washington behavioral and legal definitions of DV is critical for making the complex decisions facing judicial officers hearing these cases in criminal, family law, juvenile, dependency, or protection order courts.” Bench Guide at 2-5.

In rural Clallam County, it’s a mixed bag as far as judges being able to see coercive behaviors and being able or willing to do something about them. Judge Brent Basden, with a decade of experience in the family and dependency courts, has developed a keen sense for consistently sorting out false from true claims and being able to respectfully impose reasonable boundaries, structure and compassionate consequences in most cases. Judge Erik Rohrer has demonstrated difficulty seeing coercive behavior, doing anything about it, and in at least one case getting it backward by supporting coercive behavior and punishing the victim. Judge Brian Coughenour has demonstrated a reasonable ability to see coercive behavior, but not an ability to do anything about it, as demonstrated in a recent 4-day divorce trial. In that case, Judge Coughenour ruled the father had engaged in a pattern of domestic violence. Indeed the mother and her witnesses had proven substantial evidence of having suffered a decade of virtually all forms of physical abuse and coercively controlling behavior directed at her, in front of the children, and/or to the children. She testified that she continued to fear her husband and requested a protection order. However, Judge Coughenour declined to issue any protection order and granted the untreated father a substantial amount of parenting time.

Quick escape to Google.com

Coercive control is a relatively new concept for the legal community, and it can be difficult for people to recognize. Most people, judges or not, need some education to learn how and what coercive control is, how it differs from traditional notions of domestic violence, how common the behavior patterns are, what are the associated personality and behavior patterns, what the patterns look like in practice, what the legal system can do to minimize the behaviors and protect victims, and importantly, its devastating long term psychological and somatic effects on victims and children.

By Mark Baumann, J.D.
Port Angeles, Washington

Please note: this article represents the opinion of Mark Baumann only. Please contact the editor if you would like to submit your own opinion article.

Brent Basden swearing in ceremony Jan 2, 2019

W. Brent Basden will be sworn in as Clallam County Superior Court Judge at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday January 2, 2019 in courtroom one. A reception will follow. Mr. Basden will replace Erik Rohrer who will be moving to the Clallam County District Court II, in Forks.

W. Brent Basden
Clallam County Superior Court Judge appointee W. Brent Basden

Mr. Basden grew up in Port Angeles and graduated from Port Angeles High School in 1984.  After graduating from law school in 1994, he practiced law in Clallam County.  Since 2008 he has served as the full time Family Court Commissioner in Superior Court. He was admitted to the Washington State Bar Association in 1994.

Brandon Mack appointed as Family Court Commissioner

Brandon Mack has been appointed Family Court Commissioner for the Clallam County Superior Court. Mr. Mack has served as an assistant Attorney General with the Port Angeles office of the Attorney General since 2010. He received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Vermont in 1998 and graduated magna cum laude from Seattle University School of Law in 2009.

The Clallam County Family Court Commissioner presides over family law matters, including domestic, family and juvenile court cases. Clallam County Superior Court’s innovative unified Family Court began in 1991 and is the first of its kind in Washington. The Unified Family Court approach has become established statewide as the model for many other family courts.

ClallamCountyBar.com welcomes Mr. Mack to the bench. The two prior Family Court Commissioner’s, W. Brent Basden and William G. Knebes, served for a combined period of about 30 years. Clallam County was blessed to have these two commissioners who demonstrated the highest levels of judicial temperance, a focus on the rule of law tempered by the equities of human needs, sensitivity to the needs of rural families, a focus on the application of human development and relational science to the practice of family law, and high self-reflective capacity.

Mr. Mack will take the bench mid January, 2019. Judge Basden and Commissioner (and former judge) Ken Williams are expected to cover the family court calendar until Mr. Mack takes over his duties.

Washington’s new Grandparent’s (and Relative’s) Rights law: Senate Bill 5598

Mark K. Baumann, custody and divorce lawyer
Mark Baumann, Family Law litigation and counseling

By Mark K. Baumann, J.D., © 2018

Effective June 7, 2018, Washington has a new law that allows for grandparents and other relatives by blood or marriage (including step-family members) the potential chance to gain visitation rights with a child who is not their own biological child. The non-parent must prove they have a strong relationship with the child and that the child will suffer harm if visitation is not granted. (Please note, as of January 1, 2021, Washington has another new law for nonparental custody. The law for visitation described in this article is still valid. The new custody law, called minor guardianship, is described here.)

The new law is complex, requires the non-parent to prove certain matters, and only provides the non-parent one chance to request visitation (known as the “one and done” clause). The law does not eliminate a parent’s strong rights under the U.S. constitution to parent their child. This means that the non-parent asking for visitation has a high burden of proof to show a they had a strong relationship, and that the child or children will suffer harm. Proving a legally sufficient amount of harm will likely be a challenging issue in most cases.

Some of the provisions of the new law are summarized below. To see the full text of Senate Bill 5598, click here.

Is the law just for grandparents?

No. The law allows several other types of people to request visitation rights, including people related by blood or marriage. These include:

  • Any blood or half-blood family members, such as first and second cousins, nephews, nieces, and great and great-great grandparents;
  • Step-family members may request visitation rights, including stepfathers, stepmothers, stepbrothers, stepsisters;
  • Family members of an adopted child;
  • A spouse or family member of any person allowed by the law to request visitation;
  • If the child is a Native American tribal member, any person defined by the tribe as an extended family member

What must be proven in order to get visitation rights?

If the parent objects to visitation, the court must presume that the parent’s reasons are valid and in the best interest of the child. The non-parent must overcome this presumption by proving with “clear and convincing evidence” the following;

  • That they are allowed to request rights (must be in the list above);
  • That they have an ongoing and substantial relationship with the child, which means the relationship with the child has existed for two years (or half of the child’s life if the child is less than two years old), has involved interaction, companionship, mutuality of interest and affection, has been without expectation of financial compensation, and there has been a shared expectation of and desire for an ongoing relationship;
  • That the child is likely to suffer harm or a substantial risk of harm if visitation is not allowed;
  • That visitation is in the best interest of the child or children. To prove this, the court must consider 12 factors listed in the statute. These include factors such as the quality of the relationships between the child and parent, child and non-parent, and parent and non-parent, the parent-time sharing arrangements, the good vs. bad faith of all parties, and any history of physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect by any party involved in the child’s life.

 What kind of “harm” must be proven?

This can be a complicated legal question. Certainly, provable physical and sexual abuse and neglect constitute harm. Emotional, psychological, and attachment harm are common in our culture, but they can be harder to prove, especially in a way that meets the “burden of proof” required by a court of law.

There are some important procedural requirements

A person who wants to request visitation may only do so only one time. If the request is denied by the court, the person may not ask again.

The request must be make in the county where the child(ren) primarily live. Notice of the legal action must be given properly to the biological parents and anyone else having legal custody or court ordered visitation time.

The standard of proof is high. That is, the person requesting visitation must show by clear and convincing evidence that they have met all of the requirements of the law. This standard is not as high as “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but is higher than what would be required in a custody dispute in a regular divorce case (by a preponderance of the evidence).

If visitation is granted, it does not mean the non-parent gains the rights and duties of a parent.

Attorney fees may be awarded. Petitioners, the person asking to establish visitation rights, must pay for the parent’s attorney fees up front, unless it is unjust to do so based on the financial situation of all the parties involved.

The petitioner shall be required to pay all transportation costs involved with having visitation.

Necessary technical steps to take

The person asking for visitation must file a petition with affidavits to meet the legal requirements. The court must review the petition and affidavits for sufficiency. At this initial review, the court may not grant visitation rights. If they are sufficient, a hearing is then held.

Under the current version of the statute, it appears that a trial is not necessary after the initial hearing to allow or deny visitation.

A visitation order may be changed, but the person asking for the change must show new facts and a substantial change in circumstances, and the requested change is necessary for the best interest of the children. Requests to change a visitation order must be made to the same court that issued the visitation order.

Highly advisable steps to take

Because the non-parent only gets one chance to ask for visitation rights, and because the legal standard is very high, it is important to seek legal advice before filing a petition. Preparation for a non-parental case will be very important in all cases. If you don’t seek legal advice and lose the hearing for visitation, it may be possible to ask the court to reconsider, but a motion to reconsider, always difficult to win, must be drafted, filed, and served within 10 days of the court’s ruling.

If the court finds the petition was brought in bad faith, the non-parent (petitioner) will be required to pay attorney fees to the parent.

Limits on parental rights

A parent’s rights to visitation (or custody) of a child may be limited and restricted, but only if the court finds substantial issues with their parenting or with the parenting of their live-in partner, such as: extended abandonment; physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; a history of domestic violence; assault or sexual assault which causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm; conviction of certain sex offenses.

Of note, the current version of the statute does not include any specific limitations based on a parent’s drug use. Drug use may be relevant if it leads to neglect or abuse.

Impact on existing non-parental right laws

How this new statute will impact existing laws that allow for non-parental rights is unclear and may not be known for several years. It appears that this law does not eliminate any other major legal methods a non-parent may request custody or visitation rights. However, the new law does repeal RCW 26.09.240, which is a rarely used statute that allows non-parents to intervene in divorce/custody cases.

Is Washington the correct state for jurisdiction?

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act applies, so the child(ren) must have resided in Washington for the last six months. There are some exceptions to this requirement in unusual and domestic violence situations.

Will this law pass constitutional muster?

Grandparent’s rights laws (non-parental visitation and custody) have been difficult to implement because of the high risk the law will interfere with a parent’s rights under the U.S. Constitution. Similar to gun rights under the second amendment, The U.S. Supreme Court has previously stricken down many such laws. This new law appears to be designed to address the Supreme Court’s concerns, but whether or not those concerns are adequately addressed will likely be fought in court in the years to come. It may be the new law will eventually be completely stricken down, or be modified by court rulings or modifications to the statute. It may also be that some judges will narrowly interpret the law, that is, make it harder for non-parents to prove their case, in order to avoid constitutional challenges on appeal.

Procedural history notes

The law was passed as Senate Bill 5598, and will be codified in the Revised Code of Washington under a new chapter under title 26 (number yet to be determined). The law is currently known as Session Law Chapter 183, 2018 Laws. The companion House Bill was HB2117. To see the full text of SB 5598, click here.

This article was written by Mark Baumann, and does not reflect the opinion of the Clallam County Bar Association. This article does not provide legal advice. Anyone interested in pursuing non-parent visitation rights is advised to contact an attorney. Family law attorneys who practice in Clallam County can be found here.

Mark Baumann has practiced law in Clallam County since 1988. His practice focuses on family law, domestic violence, and applying childhood development science and psychology to parenting matters and conflict management.