Transcript Highlights:

• Week expired the statute of limitations.
• This leads to differing results depending on where your minor guardianship is filed.
• These caregivers are frequently either on fixed or very limited income.
• And I’m also on the court visitor adult guardianship registry for Pierce County.
• Senate Bill 5837 improves adult guardianships as well as minor guardianships by making both technical

Bills: SB5865, SB5880, SB5912, SB5837, SB5855

Keywords: garnishment, debt, form standardization, financial protection, legal processes, toxicology testing, laboratories, accreditation, public health, standards, indigent defense, task force, criminal justice, legal aid, public defense, guardianship, conservatorship, protective arrangement, protective arrangements, supported decision-making

Summary: The committee opened the 2026 session with introductions, then heard Senate Bill 5865 on garnishment forms. Staff and the prime sponsor explained that the bill would repeal statutory garnishment answer forms and instead require use of forms developed by the Washington Pattern Forms Committee, without changing garnishment law itself. Supporters, including a district court judge and the District and Municipal Court Judges Association, said the current statutory form leads to calculation errors and inefficiency. A collectors’ association representative raised concern about delays in the Pattern Forms Committee process and asked that the old statutory form remain usable until new forms are available. The bill was held for executive action later in the week. The committee then heard Senate Bill 5880, which would allow blood and breath toxicology results to be admissible if tested by a certified or accredited lab under ISO-IEC-17025 standards. The prime sponsor and supporters, including the Seattle City Attorney, prosecutors, and traffic safety experts, said the state toxicology backlog is causing extreme delays in DUI cases, with some blood results taking many months and some cases nearing or exceeding the statute of limitations. County and prosecutorial groups supported the goal but warned the bill could shift costs to local governments and create discovery and expert-witness complications if private labs are used. Defense advocates asked for language requiring outside labs to cooperate with discovery. The public hearing was closed with no vote. Senate Bill 5912, which reinstates the indigent defense task force, drew broad support from counties, city officials, public defense administrators, and tribal representatives who said Washington faces a statewide public defense shortage and uneven access to counsel, especially in rural and eastern areas. Supporters said the task force should study staffing, workload standards, recruitment, and alternative delivery systems, while some advocates urged amendments to add more lived-experience and technical expertise and to ensure the task force does not delay compliance with existing caseload standards. The bill then moved to Senate Bill 5837 on guardianship and conservatorship reforms, where staff outlined technical and policy changes including lower age thresholds, faster hearings, alternative service methods, and clearer notice rules. Testimony was mostly supportive, especially from kinship care and legal aid groups, though several witnesses requested amendments on notice, emergency procedures, counsel, and other technical points; the hearing ended with a large number of pro and con sign-ins. Finally, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 5855, which would prohibit law enforcement officers, including federal agents, from wearing opaque face coverings during public interactions, with exceptions for undercover work, SWAT, health, and environmental protection. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill would improve transparency, accountability, and trust, especially for immigrant, Black, Brown, and survivor communities, and cited recent incidents involving masked federal agents. Opponents, including a federal prosecutor and others, argued the bill raises constitutional concerns under federal supremacy, could endanger officers by increasing doxxing and threats, and may be premature while similar California litigation is unresolved. The hearing continued with additional testimony after the excerpt, and no final action was taken in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also removes language relating to the notice of a guardianship for a minor.
• The effect is to limit interest charge to a simple interest rate of 1% per year.
• It removes language limiting enforcement to a single to this committee.
• The effect is to limit interest charge to a simple interest rate of 1% per year.
• That's a guardianship bill. The guardianship bill on your sub? The guardianship bill.

Bills: SB5837, SB6011, SB6009, SB5868, SB5974, SB5720, SB5833, SB5936, SB5993, SB6070, SB6002, SJM8014, SB6086

Keywords: guardianship, conservatorship, protective arrangement, protective arrangements, supported decision-making, supported decision making, court visitor, adult guardianship, limited guardianship, full guardianship, adult conservatorship, less restrictive alternative, capacity, legal capacity, respondent rights, due process, vulnerable adults, disability rights, elder abuse, estate management

Summary: The Law and Justice Committee met on January 22 and first took up a series of bills in executive session, hearing staff descriptions of amendments and proposed substitutes on measures dealing with guardianship, consumer debt judgments, medical debt interest, human trafficking, missing persons, driver privacy, and law enforcement/sheriff-related issues. Members generally asked few questions during the briefing stage, but several bills drew substantive debate during final action, especially Senate Bill 5974 on sheriffs and law enforcement volunteers, Senate Bill 5993 on medical debt interest, Senate Bill 6070 on missing persons alerts and investigative tools, and Senate Bill 6002 on ALPR data and privacy protections. The committee also considered Senate Bill 5837 on guardianship, Senate Bill 6011, Senate Bill 6009, Senate Bill 5868, Senate Bill 5720, and Senate Bill 5936, with multiple amendments and substitutes discussed and adopted or withdrawn. In executive action, the committee adopted proposed substitutes for SB 5837, SB 6009, SB 5720, SB 5833, SB 5936, SB 5993, SB 6070, and SB 6002, and sent those bills forward with due pass recommendations, most to the Rules Committee and some to Ways and Means. SB 6011 also received a due pass recommendation to Rules, and SB 5868 was sent to Ways and Means. On SB 5974, Amendment Charlie was not adopted, Amendment Delta was adopted, and Amendment Echo was withdrawn; the bill then received a due pass recommendation to Ways and Means. On SB 5993, several proposed amendments were offered and then withdrawn after discussion about medical debt interest rates and repayment incentives. The committee then held a public hearing on Senate Bill 6086, which would strengthen protections for judicial officers and court personnel by expanding who can seek removal of personal information, broadening Address Confidentiality Program eligibility, and authorizing AOC security consultants to conduct threat assessments. Proponents, including AOC, judges, clerks, and other judicial-system representatives, described rising threats and safety concerns, while county officials, prosecutors, and sheriffs’ representatives raised implementation, constitutional, and data-access concerns. The hearing also included public testimony on Senate Joint Memorial 8014, which asks for a U.S.-led investigation into the killing of Aishanur Esgi; the family, supporters, and several advocates testified in favor, while two opponents raised factual and contextual objections. The committee closed public testimony after time expired, noting large numbers of signed-in supporters and opponents for both measures.

Bills: SB 302, SB 1335, SB 1734, SB 1760, SB 1975, SB 2127

Keywords: probate court, statutory judge, reimbursement, court costs, court proceedings, judicial assignments, judge assignment, cost reimbursement, judicial expenses, estate management, statutory requirement, court expenses, estates, inheritance, representative duties, court authority, personal representative, guardianship, incapacitated persons, guardianship fees

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and uh Beth, uh Beth can answer this if I misspeak, but um limited guardianship is the court order
• would limit the guardianship to specific things.
• </c> Um the statute provides for limited Um the statute provides for limited guardianship.<01:33:04.800
• court</c><01:33:13.280><c> order</c> limited guardianship is the court order limited guardianship is
• the court order would<01:33:14.239><c> limit</c><01:33:14.639><c> the</c><01:33:14.880><c> guardianship

Bills: HB0101, HB0062, HB0109

Keywords: guardianship, monitoring, ward protection, financial independence, case management, governmental claims, liability limits, inflation adjustment, public safety, local government insurance, property tax, tax exemption, homeowner, armed forces, residency requirement, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of the ward's estate. guardianship association to resolve ambiguities related to overly broad and unclear
• Generally, Senate Bill 23. 42 would require applications for guardianship to include the phone number
• birth if applicable. of the person or institution having the care and custody of the person under care limit
• I'm also on the, I'm now in visiting status mode and And on the board of directors of the Texas Guardianship
• resources for auditing guardianship estates Section 03 would enhance transparency and ensure courts

Bills: SB66, SB2165, SB2342, SB2878, SB2903

Keywords: disability, supported decision-making, legal assistance, confidentiality, access to justice, autonomy, civil rights, advocacy, Texas Family Code, DFPS, Department of Family and Protective Services, child welfare, foster care, substitute care, missing child, missing from placement, permanency hearing, parent-child relationship, SAPCR, conservatorship

Transcript Highlights:

• On their very limited resources, with that, I close. All right, thank you.
• Many of these court-mandated programs are criticized for lacking scientific basis, as there is limited
• Recent years, there have been issues with transferring guardianships between courts throughout Texas.
• But when a probate case gets moved up, a guardianship case goes up to Dallas County, they'll tell But
• A number of people have been complaining about how come these guardianships cost more and more and more

Bills: SB387, SB1335, HB1671, SB1760, SB1839, SB1923, HB1928, HB4942, HB5628, HB5642, HB1980

Keywords: judicial bond, guardianship, probate law, county judge, statutory county court, estates, inheritance, representative duties, court authority, personal representative, retroactive child support, parentage, genetic testing, family code, child's conception, incapacitated persons, court proceedings, guardianship fees, estate management, probate

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 1760 is Senator Zaffirini's bill about guardianships for incapacitated persons and charging

Bills: SB302, SB1335, SB1734, SB1760, SB1975, SB2127

Keywords: probate court, statutory judge, reimbursement, court costs, court proceedings, judicial assignments, judge assignment, cost reimbursement, judicial expenses, estate management, statutory requirement, court expenses, estates, inheritance, representative duties, court authority, personal representative, real property, deed fraud, title fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman and members, Senate Bill 1760 relates to guardianships for persons who are incapacitated, changing
• Generally, the bill would set a fee of $45 for filing a guardianship case transferred from another county
• , ensure the guardianship is concluded fully before the guardian is dismissed, and... streamline and
• lets an owner designate one or more beneficiaries rather than. than the original version, which is limited

Bills: SB302, SB1335, SB1734, SB1760, SB1975, SB2127

Keywords: probate court, statutory judge, reimbursement, court costs, court proceedings, judicial assignments, judge assignment, cost reimbursement, judicial expenses, estate management, statutory requirement, court expenses, estates, inheritance, representative duties, court authority, personal representative, real property, deed fraud, title fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman and members, Senate Bill 1760 relates to guardianships for persons who are incapacitated changing
• Generally, the bill would set a fee of $45 for filing a guardianship case transferred from another county
• and ensure the guardianship is concluded fully before the guardian is dismissed and streamline and specified
• It lets an owner designate one or more beneficiaries rather than the original version's limited sole

Bills: SB 302, SB 1335, SB 1734, SB 1760, SB 1975, SB 2127

Keywords: probate court, statutory judge, reimbursement, court costs, court proceedings, judicial assignments, judge assignment, cost reimbursement, judicial expenses, estate management, statutory requirement, court expenses, estates, inheritance, representative duties, court authority, personal representative, real property, deed fraud, title fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:09:37.839><c> the</c> trust and market stability, limits the trust and market stability, limits
• So, they have a $15,000 daily limit that they can put in.
• ,</c><01:19:15.640><c> they're</c> $10,000 transaction limit, they're $10,000 transaction limit, they're
• So, we have we don't have limits at some kiosk operators.
• We do are self-imposed daily limits. We also use blockchain analytics.

Bills: HB0098, HB0075, HB0041, HB0101

Keywords: gun control, Second Amendment, constitutional rights, misdemeanor, law enforcement, virtual currency, kiosk, financial institutions, regulation, Wyoming Money Transmitters Act, penalties, death benefits, retirement, survivor support, public safety, guardianship, monitoring, ward protection, financial independence, case management

Transcript Highlights:

• A limited schedule had already taken hold, and the court deferred to that status quo.
• Limits on delegation clarify who decides and on what record.
• The bill also combines that bifurcated age limit.
• The bill also combines that bifurcated age limit.
• The bill combines the bifurcated age limit so that children under 18 may testify and their statement

Bills: HB2735, SB5868, SJM8006

Keywords: family law, constitutional floor, legal standards, child custody, divorce, SB 5868, superior court, judge, judgeship, judicial vacancy, court administration, Skagit County, Yakima County, RCW 2.08.061, Washington courts, county judges, caseload, docket backlog, judicial workload, elected judge

Bills: SB 711, SB 746, SB 942, SB 1403, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 1536, SB 1559

Keywords: property owners' association, condominium, management company, homeowner rights, architectural review, child support, family law, Title IV-D agency, administrative adjustment, enforcement, legal representation, probate, decedents' estates, inheritance, community property, court procedures, electronic filing, guardianship, training, Alzheimer's disease

Bills: SB 711, SB 746, SB 942, SB 1403, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 1536, SB 1559

Keywords: property owners' association, condominium, management company, homeowner rights, architectural review, child support, family law, Title IV-D agency, administrative adjustment, enforcement, legal representation, probate, decedents' estates, inheritance, community property, court procedures, electronic filing, guardianship, training, Alzheimer's disease

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman and members, Senate Bill 1760 relates to guardianships for persons who are incapacitated, changing
• Generally, the bill would set a fee of $45 for filing a guardianship case transferred from another county
• and ensure the guardianship has concluded fully before the guardian is dismissed, and streamline and
• Generally, the bill would set a fee of $45 for filing a guardianship case transferred from another county
• and ensure the guardianship has concluded fully before the guardian is dismissed, and streamline and

Bills: SB302, SB1335, SB1734, SB1760, SB1975, SB2127

Keywords: probate court, statutory judge, reimbursement, court costs, court proceedings, judicial assignments, judge assignment, cost reimbursement, judicial expenses, estate management, statutory requirement, court expenses, estates, inheritance, representative duties, court authority, personal representative, real property, deed fraud, title fraud

Summary: The committee heard several probate, family law, judicial, property, and contract-related bills. Senate Bill 1335, relating to decedents’ estates, would remove outdated references to a clerk’s certificate, allow courts to remove personal representatives on their own motion with notice by qualified delivery method, and add independent administrators to provisions that referenced only independent executors; an estate-planning attorney testified in support, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 1760, concerning guardianship transfer fees and procedures, was described as setting a $45 filing fee for transferred guardianship cases and clarifying completion and dismissal procedures; it received no testimony and was left pending. Senate Bill 2127 would shorten the eligibility period for retired judges to serve as visiting judges from eight years to six, restrict practice in their assigned region for two years, and require conflict-related certification; it also was left pending without testimony. Senate Bill 302 would shift the cost of a traveling probate judge to the requesting estate or parties rather than the county; one witness registered in favor, no one testified, and the bill was left pending. The committee then considered a committee substitute for Senate Bill 252, which would clarify the parental presumption in conservatorship cases, require non-parents seeking relief against a parent to file an affidavit showing significant impairment to the child if relief is denied, require courts to state specific findings when overcoming the presumption, confirm the clear-and-convincing standard, and clarify that agreed prior orders do not defeat the presumption. The substitute was explained as consensus language from a work group, public testimony was reopened, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 1734, on deed fraud, would create a streamlined ex parte process for property owners to have fraudulent deeds declared void, modeled on the fraudulent lien statute; county clerk and title association representatives testified that it would provide a low-cost self-help remedy for a growing problem, and the bill was left pending subject to the chair. Senate Bill 1975 would prevent Texas contractors from being forced to litigate disputes in foreign jurisdictions and require disputes to be handled in the county where the project is located; it was presented as a repeat of a previously vetoed bill and was left pending. Finally, the committee took up a substitute for Senate Bill 1940, concerning transfer-on-death style beneficiary designations for manufactured homes. The substitute would allow one or more beneficiaries instead of only one, transfer the interest to surviving designated beneficiaries who survive by 120 hours, extend the application period for transfer to 365 days, void the designation if not timely filed, and require mailing by certified or registered mail with return receipt requested. The substitute was adopted without objection. The committee then recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• Acknowledgement for thresholds if you're in a limited liability company.

Bills: SB57, SB130

Keywords: property, acknowledgment, conveyance, business entities, limited liability companies, legal tender, gold, silver, bullion, specie, precious metals, coinage, currency, money, alternative currency, sound money, monetary policy, payment, debt, financial institutions

Transcript Highlights:

• Especially if we are to put the limit for new users down significantly.
• Um, especially if we are to put the limit for new users down significantly.
• </c> hinting at limiting political hinting at limiting political expenditures<01:18:32.600><c> by</c>
• </c><01:41:41.680><c> to</c> a delay because of that limitation to a delay because of that limitation
• </c> Um and then a daily limit Um and then a daily limit uh<01:42:05.800><c> as</c><01:42:06.000><c>

Bills: SB1166, SB888, SB2387, SB2471

Keywords: insurance, climate change, responsible parties, damages, Hawaii Property Insurance Association, Hurricane Relief Fund, civil action, climate disasters, extreme weather, SB888, Hawaii, consumer protection, smart home security, smart household security device, home security camera, video doorbell, Ring, Nest, connected devices, internet of things

Summary: The committee heard SB 1166 SD2, a bill on insurance and climate-related damages that would authorize the Hawaii Property Insurance Association and, in amended versions discussed during testimony, other public and private entities to pursue civil actions to recover losses tied to climate disasters and extreme weather. DCCA’s Insurance Division and the Department of the Attorney General raised legal concerns, saying the bill’s scope may not fit the insurance code section being amended, that it could create subject-matter and title issues, and that some subrogation language may be duplicative of existing rate-filing practice. Lawyers for Justice opposed the measure, arguing it conflicts with existing subrogation law and recent Hawaii Supreme Court rulings that treat the judicial lien process as the exclusive remedy. The American Petroleum Institute also opposed, warning the bill would add liability and litigation risk for companies operating under existing permits and could undermine energy reliability and investment. Supporters said the bill would help shift climate-related insurance costs away from residents and onto fossil fuel companies and other responsible parties. Testimony in support came from the Polluters Pay Hawaii Coalition, Center for Climate Integrity, Hawaii Island Council, Our Hawaii, Sierra Club of Hawaii, and others, who described recent flooding, storm damage, rising premiums, non-renewals, and underinsurance as evidence of a worsening climate-driven insurance crisis. Several supporters urged amendments to give the Attorney General explicit authority to recover insurance-related losses for the Hurricane Relief Fund, HPIA, and private insurers, and to ensure recovered amounts benefit policyholders. Committee members questioned whether HPIA is a private entity, whether the Attorney General could represent it, whether the bill could create double recovery or affect pending climate litigation, and whether insurers would have standing or damages if they are only paying contractual claims. The committee then took up SB 888 SD2, a consumer protection bill that would restrict smart household security device operators from sharing user data with law enforcement without consent or a judicial order, and would bar conditioning device use on such consent. The Office of Consumer Protection testified in support and said an Illinois law could serve as a useful template for exceptions to the warrant requirement. An individual supporter said the measure would protect immigrant communities, judges, and others from surveillance and misuse of private data. No vote was taken during the portion of the meeting provided, and the chair noted additional written testimony submitted in support of SB 1166.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to limit testimony to one minute. It's going to be one minute.
• SB 2501 addresses the limitation on a list of approved attorneys, which restricts individuals' ability
• All right, Senate Bill 2342 amends the estate codes to enhance the guardianship application process,
• My wife sits on the guardianship board. ...in the Ship Association of Texas and asked me if I would stop
• Senate Bill 2903 amends the Estates Code to strengthen oversight, transparency, and guardianship proceedings

Bills: SB1960, SB1730, SB766, SB2342, SB2501, SB2903

Keywords: digital rights, replication, Voice likeness, visual likeness, private causes of action, fee structure, online service providers, postmortem rights, self-defense, stand your ground, castle doctrine, use of force, deadly force, civil immunity, civil liability, tort claims, attorney fees, court costs, lost income, Chapter 9 Penal Code

Transcript Highlights:

• conditions in the home, the caregiving environment, or caregiver conduct or omission, including but not limited
• little concerned that maybe we should change some of those definitions, stick to very clear language limited
• little concerned that maybe we should change some of those definitions, stick to very clear language limited
• Currently, our attorneys work with DCYF to draft limited releases of information that report attendance
• The original proposal for this change to shelter care is limited to the impact on children age 3 and

Bills: HB2511, HB2660

Keywords: child welfare, dependency, imminent physical harm, child abuse, neglect, foster care, extended foster care, shelter care, out-of-home placement, Department of Children, Youth, and Families, DCYF, family law, juvenile court, child protection, unsafe home, substance use, caregiver impairment, relative placement, guardianship, adoption

Summary: The Early Learning and Human Services Committee held a hearing on House Bill 2511, which would define “imminent physical harm” in the child welfare context as a substantial risk of serious harm arising from home conditions, caregiving conduct, neglect, unsafe environments, substance use, or other circumstances likely to cause significant injury. Representative Tom Dent, the sponsor, said the bill was intended to give caseworkers clearer tools to protect children while preserving family unity when possible. Supporters, including some foster parents, kinship caregivers, DCYF staff, and advocates, argued the current standard is too vague or inconsistently applied and has contributed to fatalities and near-fatalities. Opponents, including legal aid, public defense, and family-support advocates, said the bill is legally inconsistent, could increase removals, and should be paired with more services and training rather than a broader removal standard. DCYF testified “other,” saying clearer language could help but that the bill’s wording raised concerns; no vote was taken. The committee also heard House Bill 2660, which would allow courts at shelter care hearings to order certain safety conditions and services for parents of children under five when a child is returned home, with referrals required within seven days and participation not treated as an admission of abuse or neglect. Representative Lisa Ortiz-Self said the bill is aimed at critical incidents, especially among very young children, and would let courts impose conditions when there is reasonable concern even if the child does not meet the removal threshold. DCYF and the Office of the Family and Children’s Ombuds supported the bill, saying it could help prevent future critical incidents and allow earlier intervention, though they emphasized the need for services. Some child welfare and legal organizations were neutral or opposed, raising constitutional and due process concerns and warning that services alone do not ensure safety. Several testifiers urged more community-based treatment and in-home supports; no vote was taken on either bill.

Bills: HB 148, HB 334, HB 554, HB 762, HB 1520, HB 1593, HB 3526, HB 3810, HB 5092, SB 2215, HB 2607

Keywords: family leave, leave pool, county employee, sick leave, vacation leave, family care, pandemic, guardianship, severance pay, political subdivision, contract termination, misconduct, public funds, suicide prevention, peer support, fire departments, mental health, advisory committee, fiscal transparency, local government

Bills: SB8, SB10, SB16, SB8

Keywords: education, accountability, public school assessment, state law, transparency, intervention, performance ratings, Ten Commandments, public schools, religious display, First Amendment, voter registration, proof of citizenship, Election Code, criminal offenses, limited federal ballot, immigration enforcement, ICE agreements, sheriff grants, law enforcement