In Washington State

Washington House Bill 2735 — Introducing Troxel II: A Quiet but Historic Hearing on Constitutional Standards in Family Law

Olympia, WA — February 25, 2026

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. Instead, 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, not a narrow or single‑issue response.

This level of engagement is unusual for a procedural bill and signals a statewide appetite for clearer, more consistent constitutional standards in family law.

Themes from Testimony

Testifiers described significant variation in family‑court procedures across Washington counties. Many noted that outcomes often depend on local practice or individual judicial philosophy, rather than uniform statutory standards. Several speakers highlighted the difficulty of appealing decisions when statutes do not clearly articulate the constitutional requirements courts must follow.

Written and oral testimony from The Due Process Project and the engineer behind Troxel II identified four expected effects of HB 2735:

• Evidentiary standard — establishing a consistent statewide standard for long‑term orders arising out of family court.

• Predictability — supporting healthy families and children and reducing litigation costs by clarifying procedural expectations.

• Reviewability — improving appellate review through required, evidence‑based findings.

• Alignment — beginning to bring state statutes into alignment with federal constitutional law already recognized in Washington case jurisprudence.

Testimony further emphasized that HB 2735 does not limit emergency protections for domestic‑violence survivors or children. Emergency orders remain fully available under existing statutes. The bill addresses only the standards applied to long‑term orders, not the ability of courts to act quickly in emergencies.

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 from committee members framed the discussion:

• What problem does the bill address?
  Testimony described longstanding inconsistencies in Washington’s family‑law administration and their tension with federal constitutional requirements.

• Would a constitutional floor limit judicial discretion?
  Testifiers explained that judicial discretion would continue to operate, but within the evidentiary standards set by statute—and as already required by the Constitution, just as it does in every other area involving fundamental rights.

Context Within the Same Meeting

During the same session, the committee advanced two other structural bills:

• HB 2234, expanding judicial‑security authority, including extended powers for court‑security personnel.

• HB 2000, expanding access to legal practice through the law‑clerk pathway.

During discussion of HB 2234, one member raised an equal‑protection concern about the breadth of protections afforded to the judiciary, noting that existing statutes already provide substantial safeguards for judges and court personnel.

Both HB 2234 and HB 2000 strengthen institutional capacity or expand professional pathways within the current system. HB 2735, by contrast, focuses on the constitutional standards that shape the public’s experience, reliance, and trust in the courts. The juxtaposition was subtle but meaningful: measures that expand institutional authority moved forward quickly, while the bill aimed at clarifying constitutional guardrails for long‑term decision‑making received a brief hearing and now awaits further action.

The pattern underscored why HB 2735 matters. After decades without legislative attention to constitutional structure in family law, the bill represents an effort to restore balance by ensuring that the exercise of judicial power is anchored in clear, reviewable standards.

Next Steps

The hearing concluded without incident. The committee will now determine whether to move HB 2735 to executive session. The record reflects:

• exceptionally high public engagement,

• clear testimony about statutory inconsistencies with state and federal constitutional requirements, and

• a proposal framed as a structural, constitutional adjustment to family‑law procedure.

HB 2735 now stands as one of the most significant due‑process measures considered in Washington in more than twenty years. The introduction of Troxel II positions Washington to become the first state to formally align its family‑law statutes with the constitutional principles affirmed in Troxel v. Granville, a case that originated in Washington’s own courts.