1

Supreme Court Dissolution Task Force

Administrative Office of the Courts, Sea-Tac, WA

June 26, 2008 Minutes, Approved August 7, 2008

Members Present: Professor Helen Donigan, Representative Patricia Lantz, Lonna Malone, Leslie Owen, Honorable Patricia Chester, Janet Skreen, Shamra Coy, Bev Emery, Margaret Hobart, Judge Kathryn Nelson, Judge Paul Bastine, and Joyce Shui

Staff Present: Lynette Combs and Michael Santana.

Guests Present:Lonnie John-Browns, Jennifer Strus, Bernie Ryan, Jorene Moore, Terry Price, Grace Huang, and Amy Pierson.

Next Meeting:August 7, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. (Sea-Tac).

There was discussion as to when to begin the August 7 meeting. A light breakfast will be made available at 9:30 a.m. so that task force members may arrive early and settle in. At 10 a.m. will be the first order of business.

MINUTES

Commenced: Approximately9:45 a.m.

The May 28, 2008 minutes will be amended as follows:

  • The beginning of the discussion of the Point of First Contact Program Sub-committee Report will include the following language:

The Task Force members reviewed and discussed the report that was distributed by email prior to the meeting. They were asked to indicate whether they agreed with the report’s recommendations. It was understood that agreement at this point was to the general idea of the recommendation and that detailed word-smithing would come later.

  • The Point of First Contact Program Sub-committee report, Summary of Recommendation #1’s vote tally, is amended to include the following language:

They discussed adding AOC as an option in addition to the Superior Courts or the Clerks offices.

  • The Point of First Contact Program Sub-committee report, Summary of Recommendation #5, after the tally of the vote, the following language is to be included:

The members provided written comments regarding the Point of First Contact report, which the Task Force Chair will review prior to the next meeting. It is anticipated that the next version of the report will not be divided by committee, but will be presented as one report. The Chair will submit an outline to the Task Force members for future discussion.

  • The beginning of the discussion of the Dispute Resolution Sub-committee Report will include the following language:

The Dispute Resolution Report was reviewed and discussed. As with the prior discussion, the Task Force members were asked to indicate whether they agreed with the main points in the committee’s recommendations. In some instances, the language in the report’s recommendation was changed to reflect substantive changes based on the discussion at the meeting.

  • The Dispute Resolution Sub-committee Report, the tally of the vote for Summary of Recommendation #2, will include the following language:

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with this recommendation.It was noted by the chair that both the Point of First Contact and Dispute Resolution Committees had this concern. The Washington Supreme Court opinion and briefs in the King v. King case can be consulted for background and information on this issue. The chair asked Michael Santana to prepare a draft for a section in the report that would support this recommendation.

  • For Dispute Resolution Sub-committee Report, Summary of Recommendation #5a, insert the word “should” between the words “Legislature” and “increase”.
  • The Dispute Resolution Sub-committee Report, the tally of the vote for Summary of Recommendation #5b, willreplace “expressed” with “adds to the requirement”.
  • The Dispute Resolution Sub-committee Report, the tally of the vote for Summary of Recommendation #5b, after the phrase “The Task Force members could not agree on a grievance procedure” insert the phrase “if ADR providers do not comply with this recommendation or complaints are received regarding ADR providers.”
  • The Dispute Resolution Sub-committee Report, the tally of the vote for Summary of Recommendation #12, will read as follows:

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with the need to clarify the mandatory forms regarding these points, but suggested the following:

  • Thisrecommendation includes too many points and we may need several specific recommendations rather than one general recommendation.
  • Some of the clarification language may require a change in legislation as well as a change to the mandatory forms.
  • There is a need for more precise language describing “unsuccessfully attempted.” For example, situations where the person does not show up for mediation may require a different response than a situation where the parties show up, but the parties cannot reach an agreement.
  • There is still a need to clarify the “right of review” in the legislation, and the report, because the different dispute resolution processes may or may not involve a review of a decision, but merely the right to go to court for a decision.
  • There were also concerns about enforcement and accountability if a person does not follow the dispute resolution process selected in the parenting plan.

The May 28, 2008 meeting minutes are approved as amended above.

Motions

  • Amend number 6 of the Supreme Court Dissolution Task Force Governance Procedures & Rules to provide that 9 members will constitute a quorum instead of 11 members.
  • Amend number 7 of the Supreme Court Dissolution Task Force Governance Procedures & Rules to read as follows: “Decisions of the Task Force will be made by agreement of a majority of the members present, and in no case may it be less than seven members.”

11 members were present and 11 members voted in favor of both motions.

Training Sub-committee Report

Task Force members reviewed and discussed the report that was distributed by email prior to the meeting. They were asked to indicate whether they agreed with the report’s recommendations. It was understood that agreement at this point was to the general idea of the recommendation and that detailed word-smithing would come later.

The Task Force members unanimously agreed to change the language “sexual assault” to “sexual abuse” in the entire Sexual Assault Training Curriculum.

The report’s summary of conclusions and recommendations:

  1. Theintent of the legislation is to create curricula for both evaluators and guardiansad litem.

A large majority of the Task Force agreed with the recommendation. One member opposed the recommendation and one member abstained.

  1. It is critical that evaluators have the training necessary to produce evaluations which are:
  • Well informed by research and current best practices,
  • Informed by a highly developed set of ethics,
  • Useful and relevant to the dissolution proceedings;
  • Place the best interests and well being of children at the center of consideration, and
  • Accurately reflect the impact of domestic violence, and sexual assault

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with the recommendation.

  1. The Task force realized that the creation of two fully realized curricula was unrealistic. The task force understood a full curriculum to include specific learning objectives, training exercises, handouts, resources materials for participants, a fully developed content, with specific instruction to trainers regarding key teaching points and how to facilitate the training.

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with the recommendation.

  1. Effective curriculums are tested, developed in collaboration with participants as well as subject matter experts, and rewritten regularly.

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with the recommendation.

  1. The Task Force reviewed multiple curriculums and found that no one curriculum addressed all the elements the Task Force identified as necessary. In particular, no curriculum existed that specifically addressed the role of evaluators, evaluator ethics, and making appropriate use of information about Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault in an evaluation. The Task Force recommends that an entirely new curriculum shall be created. (The last sentence has been changed based on Judge Nelson’s suggestion after the first draft of these minutes was sent to the task force.)

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with the recommendation.

  1. The Task Force recommends that the curricula be developed in a way that allows a more thoughtful, deliberate approach, so that the resultant product is excellent.

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with the recommendation.

  1. The Task Force decided to focus on creating recommendations about administrative oversight of a curriculum, and content and topics to be covered in the curriculums, including substantive knowledge, analytical skills and skills to be developed.

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with the recommendation.

  1. The Task Force recommends that an entity be created or assigned responsibility for statewide oversight of evaluators in dissolution cases. This should include articulating best practices for doing evaluations, monitoring policy, creating training standards, creating and updating of curriculums, monitoring adherence to professional requirements, and training delivery. The same entity should also be responsible for articulating ethical/professional standards, fielding complaints, and creating a process for accountability for ethical/professional breaches.

This recommendation is eliminated.

Suggestion: Agreement that the curricula needs to be updated and that AOC, or other appropriate entity, will be in charge of the curricula, and they will contract with experts.

  1. While the Task Force did not have the capacity to design an actual curriculum the expertise did exist to define in some detail the knowledge, analytical skills and practice skills that a curriculum should address. It is our recommendation that the curriculum's writer takes the knowledge/analysis/practice skills and work from them to create effective learning processes.

This recommendation is eliminated.

  1. It is also our recommendation that the curriculum drafter/entity charged with creating the curriculum collaborate with an advisory group comprised of experts from WSCADV, WCSAP, King County Family Court Services, practitioners in the field, judges, including members of the Gov’s Task Force Training Subcommittee.

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with the recommendation as amended:

Eliminate the phrase beginning with the word “experts” and ending with “Services”, and instead insert the following phrase:

“people with expertise including WSCADV and WCSAP”.

This recommendation was a typo; there is no number 11 recommendation.

  1. The Task Force Recommends that the DV curriculum address the sexual assault of adult victims as a potential part of a pattern of abuse. The curriculum on sexual assault should focus on child victimization.

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with the recommendation.

Point of First Contact Program

The Task Force members unanimously agreed that there be no pre-filing requirement to the PFCP.

The Task Force members unanimously agreed to have a PFCP that:

  • must be done within the first 30 days around filing of the dissolution;
  • takes into account the safety of all parties;
  • is an information and referral service; and
  • has staff time dedicated to making the program work.

Evaluators Sub-Committee Report

Task Force members reviewed and discussed the report that was distributed by email prior to the meeting. They were asked to indicate whether they agreed with the report’s recommendations. It was understood that agreement at this point was to the general idea of the recommendation and that detailed word-smithing would come later.

The report’s summary of conclusions and recommendations:

  1. The intent of 2SSB 5470 was to develop consistent standards for individuals who are hired by one or both parties to evaluate the parenting abilities of each parent. The legislation did not intend the Task Force to develop standards for guardians ad litem or family court evaluators.
  • Add “or court order” after the phrase “both parties”.
  • Add Title 26 language.
  • Add language about making recommendations (this language needs to be drafted).
  1. The task force considered the development of a certification system similar to the one established for professional guardians. This approach was rejected because the cost of establishing a public enforcement mechanism did not appear justified for the limited number of professionals that operate throughout the state as parenting evaluators.

Delete this recommendation.

  1. A court rule modeled after the DOH regulation for psychologists provides the best model for establishing standards for courts in Washington.

Delete this recommendation.

  1. A court rule is proposed that will apply to all mental health professionals who are appointed or ordered by the court to evaluate the parenting abilities of both parents.
  • Add “and recommend” after the word “evaluate”.
  • Combine this recommendation with recommendation seven.
  1. The proposed rule does not apply to family court evaluators or to guardians ad litem.

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with the recommendation.

  1. It is recommended that either the Washington State Legislature or the Board for Judicial Administration develop consistent standards for guardians ad litem and family court evaluators. These standards should include a review of the criteria for becoming a guardian ad litem or family court evaluator, clarification of the role of a guardian ad litem and a family court evaluator, standards for fees, funding for counties to provide guardians ad litem or family court evaluators for low-income litigants, continuing education/training requirements, standards for grievance procedures, and guidelines for conflicts of interest.

The Task Force members unanimously agreed with the recommendation.

  1. The subcommittee proposes the attached court rule to provide minimum standards for the appointment of parenting evaluators in family court matters.
  • Combine this recommendation with recommendation four.

Several Task Force members thanked and praised the Training and Parent Evaluator subcommittees for their reports. The Chair noted that there was insufficient time in the meeting to fully review the Dispute Resolution and Point of First Contact reports again. A draft of the full September 1 report will be provided prior to the August 7th meeting. If there are concerns about substantive policies or issues, it may be necessary to schedule an additional meeting. A legislative aide suggested that the September 1 deadline might be extended so that a more complete report could be given.

Adjourned: Approximately 3:30 p.m.