February 28, 2026 · Shannon Draughon
Washington HB 2735: a hearing on constitutional standards in family law
Olympia, WA — February 25, 2026. Read the bill.
The House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee held a brief but significant hearing on HB 2735, a bill that would establish constitutional baselines in Washington’s family-law statutes. It was the first time in more than twenty years that the Legislature took testimony on the structural due-process requirements governing long-term family-court orders.
HB 2735 focuses on procedural standards, not policy outcomes. It clarifies the evidentiary thresholds courts must apply when issuing durable, long-term orders that substantially affect parental rights. It does not change how emergency orders are obtained. It addresses the standards courts must use after an emergency, when issuing orders that remain in place for months or years.
Public engagement
More than 700 individuals signed in PRO, quickly and without any coordinated mobilization. The sign-in list reflected a mixed gender distribution and broad geographic spread. The pace and volume of sign-ins indicated widespread public interest in procedural structure.
Themes from testimony
Testifiers described significant variation in family-court procedures across Washington counties. Written and oral testimony from The Due Process Project and the engineer behind Troxel II identified four expected effects of HB 2735. Review the written testimony.
- Evidentiary standard — a consistent statewide standard for long-term orders arising out of family court.
- Predictability — clearer procedural expectations.
- Reviewability — appellate review through required, evidence-based findings.
- Alignment — bringing state statutes toward federal constitutional law already recognized in Washington case law.
HB 2735 does not limit emergency protections for domestic-violence survivors or children. Emergency orders remain fully available under existing statutes.
Committee record
The committee opened the hearing by acknowledging the unusually high volume of sign-ups and setting a 90-second limit for each testifier. Two questions framed the discussion: what problem the bill addresses, and whether a constitutional floor would limit judicial discretion. Testifiers said discretion would continue, inside the evidentiary standards the Constitution already requires.
During the same session the committee advanced HB 2234, expanding judicial-security authority, and HB 2000, expanding the law-clerk pathway into practice. HB 2735, aimed at clarifying constitutional guardrails for long-term decision-making, received a brief hearing and awaited further action.
Watch the testimony. Legislator contacts are on the Washington resources page.