Washington State
Family Court
-
In family and dependency courts, life-altering decisions are made every day. In dependency court, counsel is typically appointed (ARY/CHINS/Juvenile Dependency)—but in family court, the people most at risk are often left to navigate complex proceedings without legal representation. Survivors, parents, and caregivers are expected to face these systems alone, while those with more power and resources use them to delay, discredit, or dominate.
There is no right to counsel in Washington’s civil legal system. And the cost of seeking protection—financially, emotionally, and logistically—remains out of reach for many.
Through research, interviews, and lived experience, we investigate how this gap in representation undermines safety, erodes public trust, and places children in harm’s way. We also spotlight survivor-informed strategies to close this gap—from peer navigation and plain-language education to systemic reform.
-
For many survivors, seeking protection through the family court system comes at an impossible cost. Families are often forced to choose between safety and stability—navigating custody disputes, court-ordered evaluations, and prolonged litigation with mounting legal fees and minimal support.
This is more than hardship. It’s structural economic violence.
Our research reveals the hidden costs and long-term financial fallout that families endure simply for trying to protect themselves and their children. These barriers don’t just delay justice—they punish those who ask for it.
-
For many survivors, family court is not a path to protection—it’s a source of re-traumatization. Long delays, adversarial tactics, and the absence of trauma-informed practices can intensify emotional harm at the very moment families are seeking safety.
Our research documents how court involvement often escalates distress—especially when safety concerns are dismissed, minimized, or misinterpreted. Too often, protective parents are blamed, and the abuse itself is overlooked.
When the court gets it wrong, the consequences aren’t procedural—they’re deeply personal, generational, and at times, irreversible.
-
When abuse is overlooked, minimized, or mischaracterized in family court, the consequences aren’t just legal—they're life-altering. Children may be placed in unsafe environments. Protective parents may lose custody. And families are forced to navigate a system that compounds trauma instead of interrupting it.
A4 Safety documents these failures to push for evidence-based, safety-centered reforms in custody determinations—reforms that start with believing survivors and protecting children.
William Singer, Ph.D. NCC, CFT, CCFC
NWEC Program Director
Bellevue, Washington
RCW 26.09.191 | Discretionary Findings
Neglect | Substantial Nonperformance | Long-term Emotional Impairment | Physical Impairment | Substance Abuse | Absence | Substantial Impairment of Emotional Ties | "Abusive Use of Conflict" | Withholding |
Neglect | Substantial Nonperformance | Long-term Emotional Impairment | Physical Impairment | Substance Abuse | Absence | Substantial Impairment of Emotional Ties | "Abusive Use of Conflict" | Withholding |
A4 Safety Alliance
Annotated Bibliography: Neurodiversity and Family Court Reform
American Psychological Association. (2022). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings.
Updates expectations for evaluators, including functional, evidence-based assessment and attention to disability-related needs. Useful to argue for accommodations and structured methods that reduce bias against neurodivergent parents or children.
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2022). Guidelines for Parenting Plan Evaluations in Family Law Cases.
Provides practical standards for tailoring parenting plans to child and parent needs, including mental/behavioral health and disability considerations—supporting individualized plans and concrete accommodations in court orders.
Department of Justice. (n.d./updated). ADA Requirements: Effective Communication.
Explains Title II duties for courts to ensure effective communication (plain-language, auxiliary aids, modified procedures). Forms the backbone for requesting courtroom accommodations for autistic/ADHD/LD litigants and witnesses.
DOJ & HHS, Office for Civil Rights. (2015). Protecting the Rights of Parents and Prospective Parents with Disabilities in Child Welfare Systems (Technical Assistance).
Authoritative federal guidance to agencies and courts on applying ADA/§504 across investigations, services, case planning, and hearings; rejects stereotypes and mandates reasonable modifications—key leverage for disability-informed family-court practice.
National Council on Disability. (2012). Rocking the Cradle: Ensuring the Rights of Parents with Disabilities and Their Children.
Landmark report documenting systemic bias and recommending reforms (training, accessible services, nondiscriminatory standards). Although older, it remains the baseline federal policy analysis cited in later work and litigation.
Powell, R. M., Parish, S. L., Mitra, M., Waterstone, M., & Fournier, S. (2020). Terminating the parental rights of mothers with disabilities: An empirical legal analysis. Missouri Law Review, 85(4).
Finds disability is frequently cited in TPR cases and associated with adverse outcomes, underscoring the need for courts to focus on conduct and supports rather than diagnostic labels—directly relevant to disability-neutral “best interests” analysis.
Lightfoot, E., et al. (2023). Legal Ableism: A Systematic Review of State TPR Laws. Washington University Law Review.
Updates the statutory landscape: many states still list parental disability (including mental, I/DD) as TPR grounds, often with vague terms. Supports reform arguments to remove disability-status shortcuts and require individualized, evidence-based findings.
California Law Review (Symposium). (2024). Disabled Parents and the Family Policing System’s Web of Surveillance.
Analyzes how disability laws intersect with child-welfare surveillance and court processes; details constitutional and statutory levers to curb discriminatory practices and to mandate reasonable modifications.
U.S. Department of Justice & HHS v. Massachusetts DCF. (2020). Settlement Agreement.
Enforcement action confirming ADA/§504 violations in child-welfare disability cases; includes concrete remedial measures (policy changes, staff training, individualized assessments) that family courts can reference in crafting orders and local rules.
Washington State Courts, Disability Justice Task Force. (2025). Supporting Individuals with Autism in the Court System: Tools and Strategies.
Court-authored, practice-focused guide with accommodations for autistic participants (sensory, communication, scheduling, plain-language). A strong template for judicial training and local family-court protocols.
Administration for Children & Families (HHS). (2025). Child Welfare Outcomes 2021: Report to Congress.
National performance data and outcome categories informing policy; use as a baseline to track whether disability-informed reforms (training, accommodations, services) close disparities for families with disabled parents/children.
Mabe, S. L. (2025). Neurodiversity in the Courtroom: Expanding Jury Service & Accommodations. Seattle University Law Review (Comment).
Explores accommodation frameworks for neurodivergent participants and critiques current court practices—argumentation readily adapted to family-court contexts (hearing management, comprehension supports, environment).
Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice. (n.d.). Incorporating Neurodiversity into Therapeutic Jurisprudence (juvenile courts).
Discusses how judges can integrate autism knowledge with due-process protections; provides accommodations and judicial practice tips that translate to family-court proceedings with neurodivergent youth.
American Bar Association. (2025). Understanding neurodiversity can help you become a better lawyer.
Summarizes bar-level expectations for accommodating neurodivergent clients and colleagues; useful for framing professional norms when requesting accommodations in court-connected services (mediation, evaluations).
ABA Journal. (2022). How to best accommodate neurodiverse lawyers and neurodivergent clients.
Highlights practical accommodations (communication, scheduling, environment) and the business case for inclusion—helpful as an advocacy reference in motions for ADA modifications.
Natascha Fuaau, MSW
Social Worker, Office of Public Defense
Former CPS & CFWS Supervisor
Morrill, A. C., Dai, J., Dunn, S., Sung, I., & Smith, K. (2005). Child custody and visitation decisions when the father has perpetrated violence against the mother. National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).
Tucker, J. (2020). Domestic violence as a factor in child custody decisions. Fordham Law Review, 88.
Garvin, S. (2016). Rebuttable presumptions to determine child custody in cases involving domestic violence. Journal of Law and Family Studies.
In re Marriage of J.G. (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). California Court of Appeal decision interpreting Family Code §3044 regarding domestic violence custody presumptions.
Meier, J. S. (2019). U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations. George Washington University Law School.
Saunders, D. G., Faller, K. C., & Tolman, R. M. (2016). Child custody evaluators’ beliefs about domestic abuse allegations. National Institute of Justice.
Epstein, D., Goodman, L., & Davis, K. (2021). Reassessing the “friendly parent” presumption: Safety, gender, and the limits of family court reform. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law.
American Bar Association Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence. (2023). Custody, safety, and accountability bench guidance. American Bar Association.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2022). A judicial guide to safety and custody in domestic violence cases. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
-
JUDICIAL TRAINING
“I felt very much at sea.”
That’s how retired Judge Jean Rietschel described her first experience presiding over family law cases—despite years of courtroom experience. She had never handled a standard custody case, and the training, she said, was “terrible.”Our research shows she’s not alone. Across Washington State, judicial officers are making life-altering decisions in cases involving domestic violence, child development, coercive control—and more complex issues like mental illness, substance use, and children’s disclosures of sexual abuse.
We are actively researching what training judicial officers currently receive on these critical issues—and advocating for mandatory, high-quality, and ongoing education that reflects the realities families face in court.
-
GUARDIAN AD LITEM ROLES
We are currently examining the content of GAL training, required qualifications, and the ways bias can emerge—especially when GALs work under conflicting roles or institutional pressures. Many operate without a background in psychology, trauma, or child development. Few receive robust instruction on coercive control, systemic bias, or the impact of their findings on custody outcomes.
We’re especially interested in the tension between how GALs function today and what their original purpose may have been: to represent the needs and perspective of the child—not to function as de facto prosecutors of parents.
We believe this role demands much more. We're advocating for stronger training standards, trauma-informed practice, and a psychological foundation for those working with children and families in high-stakes legal settings.
-
PARENTING FITNESS & EQUITY
Under a patriarchal cultural system, women are groomed to parent—and men are groomed to be absent-minded about caregiving. Yet in family court, parenting fitness is often judged as if both parents arrive with equal preparation, support, or social conditioning.
We are researching how courts define and measure “fit” parenting in a culture where mothers are expected to carry the mental, emotional, and logistical load—and fathers are praised for showing up. We’re asking what true equity looks like when 50/50 time splits ignore who is doing the parenting labor.
We're also exploring how to better support fathers in developing parenting skills, instincts, and responsibilities—not just rights—and how to reframe fitness through a lens of shared labor, not just shared time.
Research Gap and Legislative Need: At-Risk Parents, Visitation, and Child Safety
Existing AMBER Alert research primarily examines activation criteria and recovery outcomes, but it seldom addresses how family-court visitation structures intersect with child-endangerment risk. Children of parents with known histories of domestic violence, coercive control, substance misuse, or threats to safety remain uniquely vulnerable during unsupervised or limited visitation. When a “risky” parent fails to return or appear for a scheduled exchange, the gap between family-court enforcement and emergency response can become life-threatening.
A4 Safety Alliance recommends a tiered presumption-of-danger framework for these high-risk visitation situations. The goal is to ensure rapid verification and cross-system communication before an incident escalates to abduction or harm. Under this model:
| 0 – 30 minutes | Attempt direct contact; confirm traffic or communication issues. Document outreach attempts. |
| 30 – 60 minutes | Initiate welfare-check request or law-enforcement notification. Classify as “potentially high-risk non-return.” |
| 60 + minutes | Conduct immediate welfare verification; cross-check domestic-violence, coercive-control, or substance-abuse indicators. Escalate as a presumed safety emergency if any high-risk factors are present. |
| 2 + hours with risk factors | Treat as presumed danger. Initiate emergency response pathway and evaluate for AMBER or Endangered Missing Child activation. |
This tiered model balances urgency with procedural realism—providing a clear, trauma-informed timeline for action. It ensures that a missed exchange by an at-risk parent triggers immediate safety verification rather than being minimized as a civil compliance issue. Codifying this framework in statute would give family-court judges, visitation centers, and law-enforcement agencies uniform direction for early intervention.
Empirical studies (Griffin et al., 2010; 2021; Bloomquist 2018) show that most AMBER Alerts stem from familial abductions, often involving parents who previously had visitation or custody disputes. Federal guidance (OJJDP 2019) restricts activation to confirmed abductions with imminent harm, leaving a procedural gap when danger escalates gradually through missed exchanges. The proposed tiered-response model creates a legally defined safety net between “late arrival” and “full abduction.”
Future reform and research should focus on:
- Embedding risk-based visitation protocols into state statutes requiring immediate action once a parent with a DV or coercive-control history misses an exchange without contact.
- Establishing cross-system notification channels linking family courts, law enforcement, visitation supervisors, and AMBER coordinators.
- Integrating validated lethality and coercive-control indicators into welfare-check and child-recovery tools.
- Collecting data on visitation-order compliance and missing-child outcomes to evaluate the impact of these protocols over time.
Without statutory clarity, these moments of non-return remain procedural gray zones rather than recognized red-flag emergencies. Legislative reform should define and codify the tiered-response protocol, ensuring that every failure-to-return by an at-risk parent is treated as a presumptive safety threat—triggering immediate verification and protection rather than delayed civil enforcement.
Supporting Citations
Bloomquist, J. (2018). An Analysis of the Unintended Effects of the AMBER Alert System. Bemidji State University Honors Thesis. View source
Griffin, T., Miller, M. K., Hoppe, J., Rebideaux, A., & Hammack, R. (2010). An Empirical Examination of AMBER Alert “Successes.” Children and Youth Services Review, 32(3). View source
Griffin, T., Williams, J. H., & Kadleck, C. (2021). AMBER Alert Effectiveness Reexamined. Criminal Justice Policy Review. View source
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2019). AMBER Alert Best Practices Guide (2nd Edition). U.S. Department of Justice. View source
Albany Government Law Review. (2011). Fear, Hype, and Stereotypes: Dangers of Overselling the AMBER Alert Program. Albany Gov’t Law Rev, 4(1), 136–165. View source
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). (2022). AMBER Alert Report 2022. Alexandria, VA. View source
OJJDP & DOJ. (2019). AMBER Alert Activation Criteria and Operational Guidelines. Washington, D.C. View source
Black and Missing Foundation. (2023). Do AMBER Alerts Work? Data Shows How Often They Help Bring Missing Kids Home. View source
RCW 26.09.191 | Mandatory Restrictions
Willful Abandonment
•
Physical Abuse
•
Sexual Abuse
•
Emotional Abuse
•
Domestic Violence
•
Sex Offenses
•
Willful Abandonment • Physical Abuse • Sexual Abuse • Emotional Abuse • Domestic Violence • Sex Offenses •
World Health Organization. (2017). Responding to children and adolescents who have been sexually abused: Clinical guidelines. Geneva: WHO Press.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2015). The evaluation of sexual abuse in children. Pediatrics, 135(2), e558–e567.
Cohen, J.A., Deblinger, E., Mannarino, A.P., & Steer, R.A. (2004). A multisite randomized controlled trial for children with sexual abuse–related PTSD. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(4), 393–402.
Deblinger, E., Mannarino, A.P., Cohen, J.A., Runyon, M.K., & Steer, R.A. (2006). Long-term outcomes of trauma-focused CBT for sexually abused children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(12), 1474–1484.
APSAC. (2022). Practice Guidelines for Forensic Mental Health Evaluations When Child Maltreatment Is at Issue. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.
APSAC. (2023). Practice Guidelines on Forensic Interviewing of Children. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.
Office on Violence Against Women. (2008). Guiding Principles for Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange. U.S. Department of Justice.
Supervised Visitation Network. (2016). Standards for Supervised Visitation Practice. SVN.
California Judicial Council. (2023). Standard 5.20: Uniform Standards of Practice for Providers of Supervised Visitation. Judicial Council of California.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Trauma-Informed Care in Behavioral Health Services. Washington, D.C.: APA Publishing.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2021). Child Safety in Custody and Visitation Decisions. Reno, NV: NCJFCJ Press.