SUPPORT:
HB2133 regarding student privacy.
HB2133 Prime sponsor: Rep Scott
CHN testified in support of the bill. Rep Scott is planning to introduce a substitute bill to strengthen the bill.
Due to short session bill died in committee. Rep Scott and sponsors will continue to work on this bill in the interim. We expect to see another bill in the 2015 session.
Status: Bill did not make cut off and died in the House Education committee.
Position: support
Action: ask legislators to support this bill
OPPOSE:
HB 1283 lowering the compulsory school age to 6. HB 1283 attempts to exempt homeschoolers from unintended consequences caused by lowering the compulsory school age. Bill was requested by the State Board of Education and is supported by OSPI and WSSDA.
HB 1283 SHB1283 Sponsors: Reps Maxwell, Stonier, Johnson, Hunt. Reykdal, Sawyer, Bergquist, Pollet, Cody, Kagi, Roberts, Orwell, Lytton, Jinkins and Ryu.
UPDATE: In the 2013 session HB1283 was amended and passed the House. Substitute House Bill 1283 lowers the compulsory school age to 6 for ALL children! Homeschoolers will not be required to begin record keeping or test/assess until child is age 8.
Homeschoolers are no longer exempt from this bill and will be required to comply with the homeschool law and file a DOI when their child is 6 years old. While SHB1283 does not have a negative impact on homeschoolers, CHN and others still oppose this bill on principle. Nor are we convinced that this will be the last attempt to lower the school age.
CHN is very concerned with legislation that limits parental rights. Parents should be able to decide when their child is ready for formal education.
Status: 1/13/14 SHB1283 Reintroduced & Returned to House, in Rules Committee. No action taken. Bill is dead this session. Position: Opposed
Action: Ask your legislators to oppose lowering the compulsory school age.
BILLS CHN SUPPORTS:
HB 2174/SB6247 Recognizing that the right of a parent<strong “mso-bidi-font-weight:=”” normal”=””> to make decisions regarding the care, custody, supervision, and administration of his or her child is a fundamental right.
CHN has introduced HB2174 on behalf of a coalition of pro-parental rights organizations and to codify the landmark Troxel vs Granville decision. This case went before the Washington Supreme Court which upheld parental rights as a fundamental right and are protected under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Thereby, ruling Washington State’s third party visitation laws unconstitutional. The case later went to the US Supreme Court which upheld their decision.
HB2174 House sponsors: Rep Freeman, Shea, Kirby, Klippert, Harris Scott and Overstreet
SB6247 Senate sponsors: Senators Padden (R-Spokane) & Hargrove (D-Hoquim)
Status: House & Senate committees took no action on this bill. Bill is dead.
Position: Support
Action: Ask your legislators to support HB2174/6247 & share your personal stories or examples of how government is interfering with your right to raise your child.
SB 6503 expanding drivers education options. Creating a pilot program allowing for on-line driver’s education.
Sponsors: Senators Liias, Angel
SB 6503 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6503&year=2013
CHN testified in support of this bill and submitte4d language to amend the bill to include parent taught drivers education.
Status: Senate Transportation committee took no action on this bill. Bill is dead.
Position: Support
Action: Ask your legislators to support parent taught drivers education.
SB5156 Requiring parental notification before an abortion on a minor.
SB5156 Sponsors: Benton, Shelton, Holmquist Newbry, Padden, Hewitt, Honeyford, Carrell, Delvin, Ericksen, Dammeier, King, Smith, Bailey, Braun, Rivers, Person, Shin, Roach,
CHN is coordinating with the other organizations supporting this bill. If you plan to testify please send us an email and we will connect you with the person coordinating testimonies chnow@msn.com
Status: 1/13/14 Reintroduced, in Senate Health Care Committee, no action taken. Bill is dead.
Position: Support
Action: Call and ask your legislator to support SB5156
HB1257 Requiring parental notification before an abortion on a minor. Sponsors: Shea, Taylor, Short, Kristensen, Overstreet, Hargrove, Scott, Klippert, Buys, Pike
Status: Reactivated, in House Health Care Committee, chair will not allow bill to have a hearing.
Position: Support
Action: None needed at this time
BILLS CHN OPPOSES:
<strong “mso-bidi-font-weight:=”” normal”=””>HB 1934 – Concerning visitation rights for persons, <strong “mso-bidi-font-weight:=”” normal”=””>including grandparents, with an ongoing and substantial relationship with a child. This is the same bill as HB1506 the only change is the title. Bill was introduced on February 19, 2013 and without a hearing was voted out of committee the next day!
HB1934 Sponsors: Representatives Pedersen, Nealey, Hope, Kagi, Johnson, Goodman, Hansen, Orwall, Pollet, Roberts, Appleton, Hunt, Maxwell, Ormsby, Jinkins, Green, Morrell, Carlyle, Seaquist, Haigh, Hudgins, Pettigrew, Tarleton, Sells, Smith, Reykdal, Sawyer, Morris, Dunshee, Magendanz, Hunter, Wylie, Liias, Fitzgibbon, Fagan, Upthegrove, Farrell, Takko, Ryu, Riccelli, Bergquist, Freeman, Habib, Van De Wege, Haler, Clibborn, Sullivan, Walsh, Tharinger, Moeller, Blake, Cody, Springer, Lytton, McCoy, Stanford, Moscoso
Summary: This bill would allow any person, including non-relatives to petition the courts for visitation of children against the will of a fit parent & allow a judge to overrule the parent.
Once the petitioner demonstrates that the child will likely suffer harm or there is a substantial risk of harm if visitation is not granted the burden effectively shifts to the fit parent to “prove why their decision to deny visitation is reasonable and in the best interest of the child.” We believe this is a clear violation of the presumption that fit parents are making decisions in the best interests of their children and their fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children.
<strong “mso-bidi-font-weight:=”” normal”=””>NOTE: Fit parent means a parent who has done nothing wrong. <strong “mso-bidi-font-weight:=”” normal”=””>This bill does not involve dependency (CPS) or custody cases but cases where the parent and petitioner have a dispute over who the child is allowed to spend time with. If passed into law, family would be suing family, parents would be allowed to sue their adult children to force them to allow visitation of their children.
History: Since 2004 CHN has worked to defeat bills similar to HB1934. With CHN’s leadership, several other organizations have joined together to oppose these “visitation bills.” As a result, we were effective in educating legislators of the dangers of this bill and were able to defeat HB1934 in 2013- and similar bills in 2012 (HB2193) and 2010 (HB2124). The Key to our success has been YOU!
Legislators have told us your efforts made the difference. Not only does this strengthen CHN’s work in Olympia to oppose this bill but several supporters of the bill have changed their mind! Together we have been able to defeat this legislation but we cannot stop we must continue.
Status: 1/13/14 Reintroduced, bill returned to House of Origin, in House Rules committee, no action taken. Bill is dead this session.
Position: Oppose
Action: Call and ask your legislator to oppose HB1934
HB 1506 Allowing a third party (non-relative) to petition the court for visitation of a child. This bill would enact a new section in Washington law that would allow any person to petition a court for visitation rights with a child if they have “established an ongoing and substantial relationship with the child.” The bill is not limited to grandparents/relatives but is open to non relatives.
HB1506 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1506&year=2013
Sponsors: Pedersen, Nealey, Goodman, Fagan, Kagi, Jinkins, Hope, Walsh, Orwell, Green, Hansen, Ryu, Ormsby, Roberts, Johnson, Pollet.
Once the petitioner demonstrates that the child will likely suffer harm or there is a substantial risk of harm if visitation is not granted <strong “mso-bidi-font-weight:=”” normal”=””>the burden effectively shifts to the fit parent to “prove why their decision to deny visitation is reasonable and in the best interest of the child.” We believe this is a clear violation of the presumption that fit parents are making decisions in the best interests of their children and their fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children.
Note: This bill is similar to bills CHN was able to defeat in the 2010 legislative session (HB2124) and 2012 session (HB2193).
2/6/13 hearing in the House Judiciary Committee- CHN testified opposed to the bill. Thank you everyone who came to testify.
Status: Bill is inactive, legislative action is focused on HB1934
Position: Oppose
Action: none needed at this time, see HB1934
