HB 2735 adds a new section to chapter 26.09 RCW declaring a “constitutional floor” for family law cases. The bill sets out legislative findings recognizing parental rights, then establishes several principles: a presumption that a parent is fit (and a default custodial presumption of 50/50 parenting time unless parents agree otherwise), exceptions for concrete proven violence, substance abuse, or neglect, a requirement that intrusions on the parent-child bond be the least restrictive means, equal treatment for similarly situated parents, enforceable duties to cooperate, and a prohibition on secret evidence and non-auditable procedures.
The act is titled “Troxel II.”
This matters because HB 2735 attempts to reframe custody decision-making from a discretionary “best interests” approach toward a constitutionally grounded set of presumptions and procedural constraints. That has immediate implications for judges, family court processes, child welfare agencies, and litigants—particularly in how courts evaluate evidence of harm, draft orders, and enforce parental cooperation.
At a Glance
What It Does
HB 2735 adds a new statutory section that: (1) presumes parental fitness and a default 50/50 custody allocation unless parents agree otherwise; (2) limits state intrusion by invoking strict-scrutiny-like language and least-restrictive-means; (3) requires equal treatment of similarly situated parents; (4) imposes a parental duty to cooperate with enforceable behaviors; and (5) requires court orders to be auditable and forbids secret evidence or “one-way pipelines.”
Who It Affects
Family court judges and clerks, attorneys who handle custody and parenting-time disputes, statewide child-welfare agencies, guardians ad litem and custody evaluators, and any parent litigating under RCW 26.09. Third-party intervenors (for example, grandparents or nonparent petitioners) will also see their claims measured against the new presumptions.
Why It Matters
The bill attempts to shift the decision architecture in Washington custody law from discretionary best-interest balancing toward a presumption-driven, constitutionally framed baseline. That can change evidentiary practice, the drafting and enforcement of parenting orders, and the burden on agencies that investigate abuse or neglect.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB 2735 inserts a single new section into Washington’s custody statute that opens with a set of findings: parental rights are a fundamental liberty, Troxel v. Granville left standards undefined, and constitutional protections (First and Fourteenth Amendments) should guide family-law decision-making.
Those findings ground five named principles that the legislature calls a “constitutional floor.”
The first operative principle is a presumption of parental fitness: unless the state proves otherwise, a parent is presumed fit. Linked to that is a custodial baseline presumption that parents will default to a 50/50 custody arrangement unless they agree to something different.
The bill carves out a specific, narrow list of conditions that negate that presumption—“concrete proven violence, substance abuse, or neglect.”Other principles require courts to apply a strict-scrutiny/least-restrictive-means approach to any intrusion on the parent-child relationship, treat similarly situated parents equally, and enforce a parental duty to cooperate by relying on enforceable behaviors to prevent sabotage. The bill also insists on nondelegation and “auditable” orders: advisors may advise but judges must decide; orders must be clear and contestable; and the statute forbids the use of secret evidence or one-way information pipelines.Finally, the enactment closes by stating it does not overturn precedent, respects federalism, and invites state-level innovation above the constitutional floor.
The act also gives itself the short title “Troxel II.” The text is declarative about principles but leaves multiple implementation details—burdens of proof, what qualifies as “concrete” evidence, and how courts operationalize “enforceable behaviors”—to court practice or future legislation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
HB 2735 adds a new section to chapter 26.09 RCW that codifies a “constitutional floor” of principles to guide family law decisions.
The bill presumes parental fitness and establishes a default custodial presumption of 50/50 parenting time unless parents agree otherwise.
The presumption may be negated only by “concrete proven violence, substance abuse, or neglect,” language the bill does not further define.
The statute requires that government intrusions on parent-child bonds use the least restrictive means and forbids secret evidence or “one-way pipelines” in court proceedings.
The act directs courts to issue clear, contestable, auditable orders, enjoins advisory panels from deciding cases (judges must decide), and is titled “Troxel II.”.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings framing parental rights
This subsection lists the bill’s factual and constitutional premises: parents owe fiduciary-like duties; Troxel recognized parental rights but did not set a review standard; First and Fourteenth Amendment protections apply. Practical effect: the findings supply a statutory narrative that courts can cite when interpreting RCW 26.09, signaling legislative intent to prioritize parental autonomy when reading ambiguous provisions.
Presumption of parental fitness and 50/50 custody baseline
The statute creates a presumption that a parent is fit and states a custodial presumption that parents will default to an equal (50/50) custody solution unless they agree otherwise. It enumerates limited exceptions—‘concrete proven violence, substance abuse, or neglect’—as overcoming the presumption. Practically, judges will need to reconcile this statutory baseline with RCW 26.09’s existing best-interest factors and document why a departure from equal allocation is necessary.
Procedural constraints: strict-scrutiny language, equal standing, cooperation, auditable orders
These clauses impose procedural and substantive constraints: intrusions must be the least restrictive means; similarly situated parents must be treated equally; parents carry an enforceable duty to cooperate; and courts must issue clear, contestable orders without relying on secret evidence or delegated decision-makers. These are operational rules masquerading as principles—implementation will require courts to define what cooperation looks like, what evidence is admissible, and how to audit orders for compliance.
Nonretrogression, federalism, and short title
The bill states it overturns no precedent, respects federalism, and invites state innovation above the floor, and it assigns the short title “Troxel II.” That framing limits the text’s immediate reach (no express retroactive effect or sweeping repeal) but functions rhetorically to justify future statutory or rulemaking actions consistent with the floor.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Fit parents seeking shared custody — The statutory 50/50 baseline strengthens arguments for equal parenting time and provides a clear prima facie position for parents seeking parity.
- Parents challenging third-party custody claims (e.g., grandparents or nonparent petitioners) — The presumption of parental fitness raises the threshold for nonparent interventions to prevail.
- Attorneys who litigate for parental rights — Clear presumptions and prohibitions on secret evidence create predictable legal positions and defensive strategies.
- Some judges and clerks — The requirement for auditable, clear orders could reduce ambiguous orders and ease enforcement and appellate review when courts adopt standardized order language.
Who Bears the Cost
- Survivors of domestic violence and their attorneys — Narrowly worded exceptions and an unclear evidentiary standard may make it harder to prove danger without exposing victims to additional proceedings or evidentiary burdens.
- Child welfare agencies and investigators — The “least restrictive means” and prohibition on certain evidence practices could constrain investigatory tools and require procedural changes, increasing workload.
- Guardians ad litem and custody evaluators — New expectations for auditable orders and enforceable cooperation behaviors may expand their responsibilities or create conflicting roles between evaluation and enforcement.
- Courts and clerks — Implementing auditability, policing “one-way pipelines,” and documenting least-restrictive analyses could increase litigation length and administrative burden absent implementing rules or funding.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing a robust presumption of parental autonomy and procedural transparency against the state’s duty to protect children and domestic-violence survivors; strengthening parental- rights presumptions and forbidding certain evidence can protect family autonomy but may simultaneously raise barriers to removing children from harmful situations or to preserving victim safety.
HB 2735 is declarative and principle-driven but leaves essential implementation details unspecified. The bill invokes a presumption that a parent is fit “unless the state proves otherwise” but does not define the applicable burden of proof (preponderance, clear and convincing, or beyond a reasonable doubt) or procedural mechanics for proving “concrete” violence, substance abuse, or neglect.
That omission creates immediate room for litigation over foundational evidentiary questions.
The statute’s command that intrusions be the “least restrictive means” and that orders be “auditable” raises operational questions. Courts must translate those terms into criteria for admissibility, standards for order drafting, enforcement mechanisms, and appellate review standards.
The ban on secret evidence and “one-way pipelines” signals limits on ex parte information flows, but does not reconcile with existing protective practices—such as protective testimony, sealed records, or confidentiality provisions intended to protect victims and witnesses. Those tensions could force trade-offs between transparency/auditability and safety/confidentiality.
Finally, the parental duty to cooperate and its enforcement are currently undefined: courts will need either rulemaking or case law to specify enforceable behaviors and remedies, or risk inconsistent application across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.