Effective July 22, an unexpected legislative requirement will slow finalization of domestic actions that include parenting plans. Section 304 of SB 5470 adds the following new section to RCW ch. 26.09:
Before entering a permanent parenting plan, the court shall determine the existence of any information and proceedings relevant to the placement of the child that are available in the judicial information system and databases.
JIS (judicial information system and databases) is a compilation of court history and some law enforcement data. Lawyers familiar with domestic violence protection orders may have encountered JIS checks through ER 1101(c)(4). The databases are not restricted to convictions. Due to the broad range of data included and the extremely general standard “relevant to the placement of a child,” the implications of the legislation are far-reaching. The inquiry is not restricted to mandatory restrictions on residential time or shared decision making pursuant to RCW
§ 26.09.191(1) and (2).
For example, a citation for no child safety seat in a vehicle or for a suspended driver’s license could be of concern to a court presented with a parenting plan that includes transportation obligations for that parent.
In King County, some 3,500 parenting plans are finalized annually, which amounts to 7,000 JIS checks. In a recent random sample, the court found 61% of the cases checked met the statutory criteria of relevance. The most common occurrences are domestic violence, assaults and DUI.
In the context of litigated parenting plans, the family law status and non-compliance calendar, pre-trial conferences and trials offer opportunities to resolve issues concerning JIS checks. The presentation of agreed orders before the ex parte commissioners is a much different story, however. Imagine the client who has not disclosed a domestic violence incident and is expecting to remarry next week after you enter those final documents. There is no time on the commissioner calendars to resolve issues that the JIS check reveals.
Often, only one party will be there for the finalization. In those situations, the matter will be referred to Family Court Services for further inquiry, while presentation of final orders will have to be noted before the assigned judge, with both parties present to review the follow-up from FCS.
To avoid last-minute surprises, counsel may wish to note ex parte presentation pursuant to LFLR 5(c)(1). During the 14-day notice period, the court will endeavor to complete the required history check, advising counsel in advance when the results appear concerning.
Counsel also should be aware of another new enactment in the same legislation. RCW § 26.09.191 has been amended to add the following:
In cases involving allegations of limiting factors under subsection (2)(a)(ii) and (iii) of this section, both parties shall be screened to determine the appropriateness of a comprehensive assessment regarding the impact of the limiting factor on the child and the parties.
Often parties agree not to pursue limitation factors. If the factors have in some way come to the attention of law enforcement or the courts, it should be anticipated that they will show up on the required JIS check, even when not alleged in any pleadings.
It may be that King County Superior Court will change some local rules to enable a process that will allow the court and litigants to work with this new legislation appropriately. Please watch for Clerk’s Alerts and further developments related to this issue.
n
