This bill adds a new section to chapter 26.09 RCW creating a set of rules for child custody decisions when allegations of domestic violence or child abuse are raised. It makes child health and safety the paramount concern, requires courts to rely on current scientific research, and prohibits use of practices the bill describes as unscientific. When allegations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the safer parent is to receive sole custody unless there is clear and convincing proof that parent poses an imminent safety risk; the alleged abusive parent is limited to supervised visitation pending a risk assessment. The bill sets conditions for restoring unsupervised visitation, including completing at least a six-month accountability program, accepting responsibility, and convincing the court that benefits outweigh risks, and allows termination of visitation for failure to comply. It also prohibits penalizing parents who make good faith complaints and limits use of "high conflict" cooperation-focused approaches where an expert report shows reasonable risk to children. The bill changes professional qualification and procedural requirements in custody proceedings. It requires any professional advising the court about domestic violence or child abuse to have substantial training and experience in those areas or to consult someone who does; a postgraduate mental health degree alone is not automatically proof of expertise, and lack of a postgraduate degree is not by itself a reason to disqualify a professional if they can show relevant training and experience. Courts are instructed to permit parties to present evidence from domestic violence experts, to hold an early evidentiary hearing before appointing guardians ad litem or evaluators when the record suggests possible domestic violence, and to allow full evidentiary hearings and party-selected experts in cases involving sexual abuse allegations. For child sexual abuse evaluations, professionals must have specialized training and at least five years’ post-training experience. The bill requires judges and guardians ad litem in these cases to receive specialized training, directs domestic violence advocates to provide trainings, and authorizes the state to provide additional funding for training advocates subject to available appropriations. The text supplied does not specify the new RCW section number and leaves several implementation details unclear: it does not define key terms used in the section (for example, "substantial training and experience," "specialized and approved training," "domestic violence expert," "safe, or safer, parent," or "high conflict" cases), it does not identify who approves specialized training or set standards for approval, and it does not provide specific funding amounts, enforcement mechanisms, or the legislative history referenced.

If enacted, family courts would shift toward prioritizing the child's safety by presumptively giving sole custody to the safer parent when domestic violence or child abuse is shown by a preponderance of the evidence, limiting the alleged abusive parent to supervised visitation until a specialist risk assessment and completion of a six-month accountability program and other conditions. Judges, guardians ad litem, and any professionals advising the court will face new expectations to use current scientific research, avoid discredited "high conflict" cooperation models in these cases, and ensure experts have specialized training and experience or consult someone who does; courts will also be discouraged from ordering general mental health evaluations unless there is clear reason to suspect a significant impairment. The people most affected will be trial judges and court staff (who must get specialized training), domestic violence advocates and agencies (asked to train and potentially serve as court experts, with the state to provide additional funding only if specifically appropriated), mental health professionals (who may need extra training or to consult specialists), and parents involved in abuse allegations (with safer parents more likely to get custody and accused parents facing supervised visitation and program costs). Important implementation details are missing from the text provided—terms like what counts as "specialized and approved training," who approves it, exact funding amounts, and other procedures are not specified—so how much training will be required, who pays for it, and how courts will apply these standards in practice remain unclear.