The Task Force shall develop:

1. Clear and concise dispute resolution proceedings.
2. A sexual assault training curriculum in conjunction with the office of crime victims advocacy.
3. Consistent standards for parenting evaluators.
4. A domestic violence training curriculum for individuals making evaluations in dissolution cases.

The task force shall make recommendations concerning:

5. Specialized evaluators for dissolution cases.
6. Dissolution forms and procedures.
7. Fees.

The task force shall also study issues related to:

8. Venue for filing and modifying petitions.
9. The program established under §201.

The Task Force shall present preliminary findings and conclusions to the Governor's Office, the Supreme Court, and the Legislature’s appropriate committees by September 1, 2008.  

A final report and recommendations, including recommendations for legislative action, if necessary, and recommendations regarding the program under 2SSB 5470, Laws of 2007, Chapter 496, § 201, shall be completed by December 1, 2008.

2SSB 5470, Laws of 2007, Chapter 496, § 306 expires June 30, 2009.

The Task Force is divided into the following subcommittees:

• Subcommittee on Evaluators: Parenting & Specialized
• Training
• Point of First Contact Program Subcommittee
• Sub-Committee on Dispute Resolution Procedures

General Direction for the subcommittees appears below.

Ms. Leslie Owen was chosen as the chair for the Subcommittee on Evaluators: Parenting & Specialized. This sub-committee’s first action is to obtain a clear definition of what “parenting evaluator” meant. The subcommittee is also gathering information from reviewing statutes and case law. The sub-committee is tasked to determine what standards apply to independent evaluators vs. standards for Guardians Ad Litems and make recommendations for consistent requirements for each county. The other Parent also has another representative participating in this sub committee.

Mr. Kevin Turner was chosen as the chair for the Subcommittee on Training. Concern was expressed regarding the lack of consistency, training and fairness in this area. It was expressed that this sub-committee should also address §303.

Judge Bastine was chosen as the chair for the Point of First Contact Program Subcommittee. It was expressed that the Point of First Contact Program should be under the court’s direction. Also, this sub-committee expressed interest in addressing the issue raised in §303(4) regarding how the screening will be done in cases in which it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of a comprehensive assessment regarding the impact of a limiting factor on the child and the parties. The subcommittee decided that they should not address §306(1)(c)(i) regarding venue for filing and modifying petitions. This issue should be addressed by the full Task Force.

Judge Kathryn Nelson was chosen as the chair for the Sub-Committee on Dispute Resolution Procedures, unless Rep. Lantz wished to consider being the chair of the group. This subcommittee will address problems with the current dispute resolution process and the cost of alternative dispute resolution. The subcommittee’s charge with dispute resolution should be education of individuals regarding the expectations and pitfalls of alternative dispute resolution and implementation of training and education regarding domestic violence issues such as safety and screening. 

October 30, 2007 – Notes for Kevin Turner’s Opening Remarks

Many of these remarks are outside the scope of the task force but they are guiding principles for my tenure.

It is time that Washington State government stops segregating parents into ‘custodial’ and ‘non-custodial’ for the purposes of transferring money under the guise of child support. Many actions and performance measures must be put in place to understand how children are being supported and motivate behavior that actually benefits children as opposed to custodial parents and the family law industry. 

By educating the public, government agencies, and legislators, I expect that government will improve the environment for childrearing. Clearly, purposefully and unnecessarily separating one parent from his or her children does not support children. The proposed legislative changes would promote a balanced, supportive environment for children.

There are thirteen items on my agenda. 

1. Shared Parenting: The lack of substantially equal parenting time between fathers and mothers is a continued source of acrimony between parents and children. For those who want to have an equal parenting stake it should be the standard unless there is proof of a parent being unfit. The state of Washington should not continue to cut one parent out of the parenting equation because it sees opportunity to profit from federal reimbursements based on child support ordered. This money is a profit for government while it creates a tremendous societal loss – lack of balanced fair parenting, huge legal bills (reducing financial resources for children), and a lack of stability and achievement in children. Fathers and mothers should raise their children with a minimum of governmental interference. These parents should use their own incomes to support their children. As has been shown in recent studies, the wage gap is a false argument. Therefore, it is a false argument to say that it is a reason to maintain child support as a wealth transfer program. Children should not be the cornerstone for continued illegal alimony. Children should see first hand what career decision have on a person’s earning potential.

2. Equal Child Support for All Children: The discrepancy in what parents are given to raise a child differs wildly for no good reason. Foster parents receive a specified amount per month for each child. Why should child support paid by a private citizen to another for this welfare program be any different? Custodial parents who receive more than half of the amount provided to support foster children are actually profiting. This child support profit is just ghost alimony, as the funds are typically not spent on the children. Perhaps since this is a welfare program it should be completely State funded as opposed to being funded privately. In this way, a more equitable program can be developed. Or perhaps the program should be administered in the private sector.

3. Reporting on Family Law Court Decisions & the Efficacy of Decisions: The family courts routinely make decisions that are hidden from public view. These decisions are made based on written and unwritten law as well as public policy. The vast majority of these decisions are based on bias against non-custodial parents who are approximately 90% fathers. It is important that there is an annual report on these decisions based on a simple form that would be completed at the conclusion of each trial or hearing. These reports would also be audited by an independent private company and public interest groups to assure their accuracy.

4. Functional Dispute Resolution: Poor and/or unenforceable dispute resolution provisions in parenting plans are a key reason for so many cases going through family court. All parenting plans dispute resolution provisions should be easily enforceable. If one does not abide by these resolution rules the standard penalty must be a standard finding of contempt of court punishable with jail time.

5. Post Secondary Support: On its face, it seems absurd that one adult can be ordered to pay for the education of their adult child. Washington State frequently orders this very thing. Proposed legislation would strike this provision of law and have this matter be between parents and their adult children – as it should be.

6. Judge and Commissioner Accountability: Judges and commissioners often go outside of the law in making family law decisions. These judges and commissioners should be held accountable for damage purposefully done that is in orders outside the confines of Washington state law. Among many of the common errors is making non-custodial parents pay for custodial parent legal fees. Another area is ignoring opportunities to enforce visitation and punishing the moving party in a variety of ways.

7. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Penalties: PAS does severe damage to its victims. It is a form of psychological abuse and must be considered a criminal act and pursued as vigorously as child support. Creating an environment fostering parental alienation is abuse and should be treated as such.

8. State to Determine Basic Needs of a Child and Address Poverty Level Families: Presently, the State of Washington does not have a definition of basic needs of a child. These needs should be defined and a determination of the dollar value of these needs should be published. Child support should be based on this published table and amounts above it should be handled as alimony.

1. In addition, the State should focus its attention on dealing with addressing the needs of poverty level families where child support may not meet a child’s basic needs.

9. Relationship Education for High School Students: It has come to be known that sex education is important to students in this state. However, there is clearly a missing link in creating a whole well rounded student if the subject of relationships is not covered. Students need to know how relationships get started and how they progress – sometimes to dissolution. These students will be much better off if they are also well versed in what happens when the state government gets involved in a dissolution and/or child custody and child support.

10. Reinstate Perjury Penalties in Dissolution Law: For some reason, these penalties were removed from the law. It is important that such a critical set of law includes penalties for being untruthful especially since the consequences are so severe. Don’t we expect people to be honest? Or do we expect them to be liars and benefit from lies.

11. Eliminate the Winner Take All Approach to Dissolution: This process leads to ongoing issues and no process for resolution.  Families don’t win if we have this sort of environment where someone is destined to be destroyed. And there is reward for it.

12. Align laws, as well as roles and responsibilities. Presently, there is an imbalance in responsibilities in the way divorces are handled. Balance will provide an opportunity to reduce the frustration felt by those who are put in a position of being highly responsible while they have little opportunity to have a positive impact on their children or are not treated equally in divorce settlements. In addition, it is important to properly align laws so there is no duplication and necessary importance is given to policy issues to be resolved.

13. Treat Men and Women as Equals in Dissolution: It is curious that it seems that men and women are treated differently in the process. Why is that? Aren’t we all equal under the law? Can the state show that there is equality? Does it care? Are judges and commissioners accountable for recording their decisions in a format were the public can tell who are making what decisions? Are judges hiding from their decisions because they are unconstitutional?