Research

Washington State family court

Through research, interviews, and lived experience, we investigate how the family court system protects—or fails to protect—children, and we spotlight survivor-informed solutions.

Washington counties: 39Washington countiesEach with Superior Court judges deciding family-court cases.
Superior Court judges: ~143Superior Court judgesMost first reach the bench by appointment; many with little or no domestic-violence training.
Right to counsel: 0Right to counselNo guaranteed lawyer in family court, even when a parent is seeking safety from abuse.

Barriers to safety

Barriers to legal counsel

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.

Economic barriers to safety

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.

The emotional weight of litigation

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.

Impact of unrecognized abuse

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.

What we’re researching now

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.

Other areas of study

Intimate partner violence
AMBER Alerts in custody cases
Guardianship
Dependency
Military mental health services
Coercive control
Psychological evaluations
Domestic violence assessments
Drug and alcohol testing
Mediation & settlement conferences

Explainer

RCW 26.09.191 — limits on parenting plans

Washington’s RCW 26.09.191 sets out when a court must, or may, restrict a parent’s residential time and decision-making. People often call these “.191 restrictions.”

Mandatory restrictions

Findings that require the court to limit a parent’s time.

Willful abandonment
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
Emotional abuse
Domestic violence
Sex offenses

Discretionary findings

Factors the court may use to limit a parenting plan.

Neglect
Substantial nonperformance
Long-term emotional impairment
Physical impairment
Substance abuse
Absence
Substantial impairment of emotional ties
“Abusive use of conflict”
Withholding

Plain-language summary for education only — not legal advice. Read the statute at app.leg.wa.gov.

Research gap & legislative exploration

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.

One potential model for exploration is a tiered presumption-of-danger framework designed to guide timely response and cross-system coordination when a parent with known risk factors fails to return a child as scheduled. This serves only as an exploratory example of how a trauma-informed timeline might operate in practice—balancing urgency with procedural realism—where a missed exchange involving a high-risk parent could trigger coordinated safety verification rather than being treated solely as a civil compliance matter.

Empirical studies (Griffin et al., 2010; 2021; Bloomquist, 2018) indicate that many AMBER Alerts arise from familial abductions involving existing custody or visitation disputes. Federal guidance (OJJDP 2019) limits activation to confirmed abductions with imminent harm, leaving a procedural gap when danger escalates gradually through missed exchanges.

Future inquiry could consider

Developing risk-based visitation response protocols that account for domestic violence or coercive-control histories.
Testing cross-system notification practices linking courts, visitation centers, and AMBER coordinators.
Evaluating validated lethality and coercive-control indicators within welfare-check procedures.
Gathering data on visitation compliance and child safety outcomes to assess impact.

At present, these missed-exchange scenarios often exist in procedural gray zones rather than recognized safety emergencies. Ongoing research and dialogue could help clarify when and how rapid verification should occur—informing future policy design without presupposing specific legislative mandates.

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. 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

Reading lists

Annotated bibliographies compiled by A4 Safety Alliance.

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.

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).

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.

Lightfoot, E., et al. (2023). Legal Ableism: A Systematic Review of State TPR Laws. Washington University Law Review. Many states still list parental disability 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.

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 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).

Administration for Children & Families (HHS). (2025). Child Welfare Outcomes 2021: Report to Congress. National performance data and outcome categories informing policy; a baseline to track whether disability-informed reforms close disparities.

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.

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.

American Bar Association. (2025). Understanding neurodiversity can help you become a better lawyer. Summarizes bar-level expectations for accommodating neurodivergent clients and colleagues.

ABA Journal. (2022). How to best accommodate neurodiverse lawyers and neurodivergent clients. Highlights practical accommodations (communication, scheduling, environment) and the business case for inclusion.

Domestic violence and custody decisions

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.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2022). A judicial guide to safety and custody in domestic violence cases.

Child sexual abuse, forensic evaluation and supervised visitation

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.

Contributors

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