One issue I’ve been hearing about more and more, and one that deserves closer attention, is how our family court system is impacting women and children. You’ve likely seen the headlines about failures within Washington’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families. Those cases are heartbreaking and have rightly drawn public attention and demands for greater accountability.
But there’s another system that operates largely out of view, making decisions every day that shape the lives of families across our state: the family court system.
Unlike high-profile agency failures, what happens in family courtrooms rarely makes the news. Yet these decisions — about custody, finances, and housing — can have lasting and sometimes devastating consequences.
Judges are given broad discretion to make these calls. That responsibility is significant, and in many cases, necessary. But too often, it is exercised without consistent safeguards, clear standards, or adequate training — particularly when it comes to complex issues like domestic violence and coercive control.
Family Court Services, including evaluators and conciliators, play a major role in advising the court. Their recommendations often carry significant weight. However, unlike guardians ad litem, they are not held to consistent ethical standards and are not always required to have specialized training in recognizing patterns of abuse.
That gap has real consequences.
Coercive control is one of the most difficult forms of abuse to identify. It doesn’t leave visible scars. Instead, it shows up through isolation, financial control, manipulation, and intimidation. Without proper training, these patterns can be missed — and when they are, courts can unintentionally place victims back into harmful situations.
I’ve seen cases where flawed recommendations and decisions could have left a parent and children without stable housing or even basic necessities, if not for outside intervention.
There are also financial decisions that, while appearing fair on paper, can create impossible situations in practice.
For example, a court may award the family home to the custodial parent but require them to pay the other party half of the home’s equity. In reality, many families simply cannot afford both the mortgage and that payout. The result is often a forced sale.
Without the resources to properly prepare the home for sale, and under pressure from looming financial obligations, families may be forced to accept a lower price. After fees and taxes, there is little left — and the custodial parent and children can be left without a home.
Meanwhile, the other party walks away with cash. These are not isolated cases. They point to a broader issue: well-intentioned decisions that, without the right structure and safeguards, can lead to harmful outcomes.
Last year, I introduced SB 5706 to begin addressing part of this problem. It would have secured federal funding to provide judges with training focused on recognizing domestic violence, including coercive control, and created more consistent guardrails around decision-making.
Unfortunately, my proposal did not move forward. But this issue isn’t going away — and neither am I. I will keep working to bring attention to how family court decisions impact real families, not just in theory, but in practice. That means pushing for training requirements, clear ethical standards, and ensuring decision-makers have the tools they need to recognize and respond to complex forms of abuse.
Most importantly, we need to recognize what’s at stake. These are not abstract policy debates. These decisions can mean the difference between safety and harm, stability and displacement.
We should not have to wait for more tragedies to take action.