RCW 26.09.191, the Washington law on parenting plan limitations (a/k/a “.191 restrictions”), will change this month due to the passage of House Bill 1620. The bill, which was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor Bob Ferguson in April, will take effect on July 27, 2025. The new law introduces new definitions and standards and reflects a substantial reorganization for the purpose of adding clarity and consistency. Key changes to the law include the following:
Strengthens safeguards around supervised visitation
The law adds a presumption that, if the court requires supervised visitation, the supervision shall be provided by a professional supervisor. This presumption may be overcome if the court finds that a lay person has demonstrated that they are capable and committed to protecting the child from harm, and if the parent is unable to access professional supervision. Previously, the law did not include this presumption, and a lay person could supervise if they were “neutral and independent” and “willing and capable of protecting the child from harm.” The new law requires the court to provide clear written guidelines and prohibitions for supervision, which the supervisor and the supervised parent must agree upon in writing before the first visit.
Clarifies mandatory limitations on decision making and dispute resolution
Previously, the law stated that the parenting plan “shall not require mutual decision-making or designation of a dispute resolution process other than court action” if the court finds that one parent engaged in conduct requiring residential time limitations. This language was a bit confusing. Now, the language has been simplified to state that the court “shall order sole decision making and no dispute resolution other than court action” if it finds that the parent has engaged in the conduct requiring residential time limitations.
Requires courts to make express written findings if they decide not to impose .191 restrictions on a parent’s contact with the child
A substantial change to the law is that, if a court decides not to impose .191 restrictions on a parent who has been found to have engaged in harmful conduct, there must be “clear and convincing” evidence supporting its decision. The court must make express written findings on all of the following factors: (i) “any current risk posed by the parent” to the well-being of the child or other parent, (ii) whether the parent has “demonstrated that they can and will prioritize the child’s physical and psychological well-being,” (iii) whether a parent “has adhered to and is likely to adhere to court orders,” (iv) whether a parent has “genuinely acknowledged past harm and is committed to avoiding harm in the future,” and (v) a parent’s “compliance with any previously court-ordered treatment.”
Describes the steps the court must take if .191 restrictions apply to both parents
When mandatory .191 restrictions apply to both parents (due to willful abandonment, child abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault, etc.), the court must make “detailed written findings regarding the comparative risk of harm to the child posed by each parent and shall explain the limitations imposed on each parent.” The same is true for discretionary limitations (due to neglect or nonperformance of parenting functions, long-term impairment that interferes with the performance of parenting functions, absence of emotional ties between the parent and child, abusive use of conflict) that apply to both parents. If mandatory limitations apply to one parent and discretionary limitations apply to the other, “there is a presumption that the mandatory limitations shall have priority in setting the limitations of the residential schedule, decision making, and dispute resolution. If the court deviates from this presumption, the court shall make detailed written findings as to the reasons for the deviation.”
Provides standalone definition of “abusive use of conflict”
The law previously stated that a court may add limitations to the parenting plan if there is the “abusive use of conflict” by a parent. It defined “abusive use of conflict” as including, but not limited to, “abusive litigation as defined in RCW 26.51.020.” Now, the law has been amended to include a standalone definition of “abusive use of conflict” in the context of parenting plans as including, but not limited to, (i) repeated bad faith violations of court orders regarding the child or protection of the other parent, (ii) credible threats of harm to the other parent or other people providing support to the child or other parent, (iii) intentional use of the child in conflict, or (iv) abusive litigation as defined in RCW 26.51.020.
Requires that a parent know or reasonably should know if a person with whom they are living has engaged in conduct requiring residential time limitations
Previously, the law limited a parent’s residential time with their child if the parent resided with a person who engaged in child abuse, domestic violence, or sexual assault. Now, the law has been amended to limit the parent’s residential time if the parent “knowingly resides” with a person who has engaged in any of these acts.
For reference, the bill can be found here: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1620-S.SL.pdf.
