E.V. Adams, staff to the Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee, summarized House Bill 1014 on Jan. 15, saying the bill implements recommendations from the Division of Child Support’s quadrennial work group and makes multiple changes to Washington’s child support laws.

The bill would extend the child support economic table from combined monthly net incomes of $1,000–$12,000 up to $50,000, raise the table’s lower floor to $2,200, add a deduction for mandatory state deductions such as state-paid insurance premiums, and specify that mandatory and optional educational expenses are not part of the basic support obligation and instead would be shared by the parents. It would also raise the self-support reserve from 125% to 180% of the federal poverty guideline for a single-person household and create a one-time temporary abatement provision that allows reduction of child support to $50 per month per child for up to six months while a parent is in court-ordered behavioral health treatment under the Involuntary Treatment Act.

Representative Suzanne Schmidt, prime sponsor and member of the child-support work group, said the bill “outlines the recommendations of the work force” and described the measure as a collaborative effort to comply with federal requirements and modernize support calculations. Schmidt characterized the changes as “fair to both sides” and said public hearings around the state informed the proposal.

Sharon Redmond, director of the Division of Child Support at the Department of Social and Health Services and chair of the work group, told the committee the work group met for more than nine months and held two public forums before reaching consensus on the provisions that are included in the bill. Redmond said raising the economic table’s ceiling to $50,000 addresses the reality that many families’ combined monthly net incomes exceed the previous $12,000 cap and therefore need a clearer formula to determine obligations. She explained the work-group choice to raise the self-support reserve to 180% of the federal poverty guideline because the 2024 reserve “$15.69” (as stated in testimony) was judged inadequate in the state’s cost-of-living context.

Terry Price, a family law professor and work-group member, testified in support and said the bill addresses several “low-hanging fruit” items that would help self-represented litigants and reduce conflict on the ground. Price urged consideration of indexing mechanisms but said the structure of the economic table already incorporates income-driven movement up the chart.

Pat Ronsley, legislative liaison for the Washington State Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee, said the committee’s current position was “other” given draft language in Section 3 that would add a new subparagraph about educational expenses. Ronsley said FLEC would support the bill if that new subparagraph were deleted, arguing the draft language risked redundancy with existing statutory tuition references and could create litigation over undefined terms such as “mandatory educational expenses.”

Representative Cindy Jacobson asked whether the income levels and the self-support reserve should be indexed automatically (for example, to CPI); witnesses said federal rules require a four-year review but that work-group materials could clarify the origin of the 180% figure.

The committee took testimony from state agency officials, the bill sponsor and legal stakeholders and did not vote on the measure at the hearing. Staff and work-group members offered to provide follow-up details by request to members who asked for additional data on indexing and the self-support-reserve calculations.