Washington State has been steadily layering laws that expand government authority into family life. Each new bill builds on the last, creating a web of statutes that weaken parental rights and strengthen the state’s hand in private family decisions.

In 2022, lawmakers passed SB 5883, which expanded informed consent rules so that unaccompanied homeless minors — and even school staff — could authorize routine healthcare without parental involvement. That same year, HB 1901 redefined domestic violence to include “coercive control,” a vague standard that allows courts to restrict parental rights if ordinary disagreements are framed as emotional harm.

In 2023, legislators advanced SB 5599, granting minors the ability to access “protected healthcare services” (gender‑affirming care and abortion) without parental consent or notification. And now, with SB 5837 (prefiled for 2026), the state has constructed the procedural machinery to enforce those rights against parents.

SB 5837: The Next Step

At first glance, SB 5837 looks like a technical guardianship reform. But the details reveal a system designed to expand court and state power at the expense of families:

• Emergency Guardianships: Judges can appoint guardians without notice if they believe harm is imminent. Parents may not even know until after authority has been stripped.
• Mandatory Attorneys: Minors 12+ must be given attorneys if parents object, escalating disputes into adversarial battles.
• Guardian ad Litem Reports: Outsiders interview minors and report their wishes directly to judges, bypassing parents.
• Expanded Notice: Grandparents, siblings, and even former caregivers must be notified — widening sensitive disputes to outsiders.
• Standby Guardianships: Courts may appoint guardians if they believe parents are “unlikely” to perform duties within two years.
• Attorney General Petitions: The state itself can initiate guardianship proceedings, formalizing government standing in family disputes.

How the Web Works

Put together, these laws form a coordinated framework:

• SB 5883 normalized bypassing parents for healthcare consent.
• HB 1901 gave courts justification to restrict parents under “coercive control.”
• SB 5599 granted minors substantive rights to access protected healthcare without parents.
• SB 5837 provides the procedural tools; guardianships, GALs, attorneys to enforce those rights when parents object.

Red Flags in SB 5837

• Emergency Guardianships Courts can appoint guardians without notice if they believe harm is imminent. Hearings may be delayed up to 14 days — or longer for “good cause.” Parents may lose authority before they even know what’s happening.
• Mandatory Court‑Appointed Counsel Minors 12+ must be given attorneys if parents object. Indigent parents who object must also be appointed counsel. This escalates disputes into adversarial battles, ensuring minors have independent advocates who may align with state agendas.
• Guardian ad Litem Powers Court‑appointed outsiders must interview minors and report their wishes directly to judges. This gives minors a direct line to the court, bypassing parents.
• Expanded Notice Requirements Grandparents, siblings, former caregivers, and even distant nominees must be notified. Courts may allow service by email, text, or social media. Sensitive family disputes are suddenly opened to a wide circle of outsiders.
• Standby Guardianships Courts may appoint guardians if they believe parents are “unlikely” to perform duties within two years. These speculative judgments allow preemptive intervention.
• Retained Rights of Parents Orders must preserve parent‑child relationships unless restricted under RCW 26.09.191. That statute allows restrictions for abuse, neglect, or “emotional harm,” giving courts broad discretion to limit parental involvement.
• Attorney General Petitions The state itself can initiate guardianship proceedings when no private party steps in. This formalizes government standing in family disputes.

Why This Matters

This is not speculation. It is the logical outcome of combining these laws: parents object, courts frame it as coercive control, guardianships are imposed, and minors gain access to services without parental consent. By the time parents are heard, irreversible steps may already have been taken.

Language like “may,” “good cause,” and “emotional harm” gives courts wide discretion. Clauses that sound protective — like mandatory counsel or expanded notice — actually entrench state involvement. SB 5837 ensures disputes are litigated, not resolved within families.

Conclusion

Families in Washington, and across the country, should pay close attention. These bills are not isolated. They represent a model of how government can expand its reach into the most intimate decisions of family life. Parents must be vigilant, informed, and ready to push back against this coordinated framework of overreach.

TAKE ACTION

We encourage Washington citizens to send a respectful and polite email to Republican Senator Jeff Holy who is the co-sponsor of SB 5837 and ask him to reconsider his support for this bill and remove his sponsorship. Below is an email you can copy/paste. It’s always better to use your own words, but hopefully this gives you a starting place!

Subject: Respectfully Requesting Your Withdrawal of Support for SB 5837

Dear Senator Holy,

I am writing to you as a concerned Washington citizen regarding SB 5837, the recently pre‑filed legislation on emergency guardianships. While I appreciate your commitment to bipartisan solutions and protecting vulnerable individuals, I am deeply troubled by the implications this bill has for parental rights and family integrity.

SB 5837, when combined with existing laws such as SB 5599, SB 5883, and HB 1901, creates a framework that expands government authority into family life in ways that many parents find alarming. By broadening emergency guardianship powers, mandating court‑appointed counsel for minors, and tying parental rights to vague standards of “emotional harm” and “coercive control,” this bill risks sidelining parents in critical healthcare and family decisions.

Families are the cornerstone of our communities, and parents must remain the primary decision‑makers for their children. I respectfully urge you to reconsider your sponsorship of SB 5837 and remove your name from the bill. Doing so would send a strong message that you stand with families in preserving their rights and responsibilities.

Thank you for your service to our state and for considering the concerns of parents like myself.

Sincerely, [Your Name] [City], Washington

Below are the slides from our December 9th livestream on YouTube.