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
Natascha Fuaau, MSW
Social Worker, Office of Public Defense
Former CPS & CFWS Supervisor
-
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.