House Bill 2686 adds a new section to chapter 26.09 RCW and makes multiple amendments to court fee and clerk statutes. The new section creates two exemptions for filing a petition for dissolution of marriage: no filing fee or surcharge when, at any point during the marriage before filing, either (a) a full domestic violence protection order was issued against the respondent or (b) the respondent was charged with a “crime of domestic violence” as defined in RCW 10.99.020. The new section also requires law enforcement, upon the petitioner’s request and at no cost, to effect personal service of the summons and petition with at least two timely attempts under the same domestic-violence-related conditions. These are new statutory provisions and procedural changes governing service and fee exemptions. The bill amends RCW 26.12.260 to authorize or require counties (depending on state funding) to create a program to provide specified services to parties in chapter 26.09 proceedings, sets minimum program components, prohibits the program from giving legal advice or creating an attorney-client relationship, allows counties to impose a user fee or surcharge up to $20 to fund the program (with services for indigent persons provided at no expense), prescribes appointment methods for program personnel, and requires parties to allege and complete a meet-and-confer with the program prior to filing certain petitions or participating in mediation when a county program exists. These are procedural and administrative changes affecting county services and prefiling requirements. The bill also amends clerk and filing fee statutes to set and reallocate specific fees and surcharges. It establishes or clarifies filing fees including a $36 fee for a petition to modify a decree within the same case and an additional $54 fee on filing the first petition for dissolution, legal separation, or declaration concerning validity of marriage (with $48 of that $54 transmitted monthly to the state domestic violence prevention account and $6 retained by the county, up to 5% retained by the court for administration), and exempts that $54 fee for petitions covered by the new chapter 26.09 section. Separately, many civil filings and appeals are set at a $200 filing fee with listed exceptions, unlawful detainer initiating fee is $45, certain protection order fees are $53, and a detailed schedule of sheriff fees and other clerk fees is specified; the sheriff may not collect a fee for service of summons and petition pursuant to the new section 1. Counties must report annually to DSHS on related revenues and expenditures. The bill text available is incomplete in places (an amendment beginning to RCW 36.18.020 and parts of RCW 36.18.040 are cut off), and definitions cited (for example, the text of RCW 10.99.020 and RCW 7.105.010) and some cross-referenced material are not included in the extracted facts.

If enacted, people seeking a divorce who can show their spouse was subject to a full domestic violence protection order or was charged with a defined crime of domestic violence would likely face no filing fee and could ask law enforcement to serve their petition at no cost with at least two attempts, making it cheaper and often safer for domestic violence survivors to start dissolution cases. Sheriffs and police would be required to perform that service without charging the petitioner, which shifts some service costs and operational burden to law enforcement agencies and local governments. Counties and court clerks would take on new administrative duties: they may establish family law assistance programs (staffed like court investigators), require parties to meet with those programs before filing or mediation where a county program exists, collect and remit new filing surcharges and the bulk of a $54 initial filing fee to the state domestic violence prevention account while keeping a small county share, and report annually to DSHS. Counties can fund programs with a user surcharge (up to $20) but the bill exempts qualifying domestic violence petitioners from some fees and prevents sheriff service charges in those cases; the text leaves unclear some implementation details because the new section 1 and several definitions and later amendments are not fully included here.