Legislative Action Hub

Welcome to the One Mom’s Battle (OMB) Legislative Action Hub — one of the leading resources for family court reform efforts.

We have a crisis in our family court system. but we believe change is possible. With over 200,000 members around the world, the OMB community stands as a united, unstoppable force demanding change and safeguarding children.

Here, you will find:

  • Updates on Critical Legislation: Stay informed on the latest bills impacting family courts.

  • Advocacy Opportunities: Lend your voice to support positive changes and stop harmful legislation.

  • Project Justice USA Survey: Your experiences matter. Complete the anonymous survey at www.projectjusticeusa.com. Your input helps us create data-driven change.

Together, we are stronger. Together, we can make a difference.

Interested in Making Changes?

Hera McLeod, Annie Kenny and Tina Swithin are leaders in the family court reform movement - learn how you can get involved in advocacy efforts and make changes in your state.

Calls to Action: State by State

  • Vote NO on Alabama’s HB229

    Alabama’s HB229 is a bill that will have a significant impact on victims of domestic abuse and children. We are asking residents of Alabama to utilize the following template letter to contact your representatives.

    Click here to identify your representative.
    Click here to find legislators phone numbers and email addresses.

    Choose a template below to let the representatives in Alabama know that the whole world is watching:

    ‣ For residents of Alabama
    ‣ For those outside of Alabama

  • "Christine’s decade-long battle against a corrupt family court system in Colorado exposes a system that repeatedly fails to protect children—even when overwhelming evidence of domestic violence, neglect, and abuse exists. Forced to surrender custody of her child to an abusive parent, despite court findings and documented injuries, Christine’s case lays bare the deep-seated corruption and conflicts of interest in Colorado’s 7th Judicial District. This scandal—uncovered by ProPublica and further investigated by Wayne Dolcefino—demands immediate action: state leaders must return the child to his protective mother, investigate the rampant corruption, and move the case to Denver County to guarantee a fair trial. Our call is clear: Bring Him Home. Investigate the 7th."

    If you live in Colorado:
    Please take a moment to visit https://leg.colorado.gov/FindMyLegislator to look up your elected officials and ask them to push for justice—ensuring this case is handled with the urgency and integrity our children deserve. Every voice matters—together, we can demand accountability and a safer future for this child and for all children. See templates below for email and phone script.

    If you live outside Colorado: 

    Please contact legislators in Colorado by visiting https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators and ask them to push for justice—ensuring this case is handled with the urgency and integrity our children deserve. Every voice matters—together, we can demand accountability and a safer future for this child and for all children. See templates below for email and phone script.

    ‣ For Colorado Residents: Email Template and Phone Script

    ‣ For Residents Outsides Colorado: Email Template and Phone Script

  • URGENT: Click here to add your name to letter urging WA lawmakers to SUPPORT ESHB 1620 to protect survivors

    About ESHB 1620:

    Prioritizes Safety in Custody Decisions
    Abuse must be evaluated before consid    ering best interest factors.

    Limits Rights of Abusive Parents
    No joint custody or mutual decision-making allowed.
    No mandatory dispute resolution with abusers.

    Protects Protective Parents
    Courts cannot punish parents for taking protective actions.
    Emotional impact of abuse on a parent is not grounds to deny custody.

    Strengthens Oversight of Visitation
    Presumes professional supervision for abusers.
    Clear court-ordered safety protocols for visitation.

    Absolute Protections for Children
    No contact allowed with convicted sex offenders or sexually violent predators.
    Restrictions apply if a parent lives with a known abuser/offender.

    Requires Detailed Court Findings
    Courts must justify any parenting time awarded to abusive parents in writing.

    Judicial Training
    Promotes trauma-informed training for judges on domestic violence and child safety.

    The bill is scheduled for a public hearing in the Senate Law & Justice Committee on Tuesday, March 18, at 8:00 AM.

    There are two ways you can show your support for ESHB 1620:

    1. Sign up to TESTIFY in support (PRO) – You can testify either in person or remotely.

    2. Sign in your support (PRO) for the bill without testifying.

    If you choose to testify or just note your support, register your position in support for the legislative record... 

    How to Sign Up:

    1. Click this link: https://app.leg.wa.gov/csi/Senate?selectedCommittee=17548&selectedMeeting=33060

    2. Select the agenda item: ESHB 1620 – Parenting Plan Limitations.

    3. Choose your type of testimony:

      • "I would like to testify in person or remotely" OR

      • "I would like my position noted for the legislative record."

    4. Fill out the form.

    5. Submit.

  • Call to action for Texas residents:

    Submit your testimony by Monday, April 7 - click here to help us ban reunification camps in Texas.

    Safe Haven Act

    Subchapter A, Chapter 153, Family Code, is amended by adding Sections 153.0101 and 153.0102 to read as follows:

    Sec. 153.0101. ORDER FOR PARENTAL REUNIFICATION THERAPY. (a) For purposes of this section, "parental reunification therapy" includes any therapy, treatment, program, camp, or service that is intended to address, repair, or remediate a child's relationship with a parent. (b) In a suit, the court may not require a child to participate in parental reunification therapy without the consent of both parents. (c) Regardless of whether both parents consent, the court may not order parental reunification therapy that requires, involves, or may result in: (1)  a prohibition on contact between the child and: (A)  the child's other parent; (B) a nonparent appointed as a conservator of the child; or (C) another family member to whom the child is related within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity; (2) the parent and child staying together overnight or traveling together out of state; (3) the rendition of an order of modification under Chapter 156 temporarily transferring conservatorship or possession of the child to the parent seeking reunification; (4) the use of transportation services or agents that engage in: (A) the use or threat of force or physical obstruction; or (B) other actions that place the child's safety at risk; or (5) the use of or threats of physical force, undue influence, verbal abuse, or isolation from the child's sources of support. (d) This section may not be construed to prohibit a court from ordering a party to attend and complete a battering intervention and prevention program under Section 153.004(d-1)(2)(D). (e) A person who is a party to a suit involving an order that violates this section may bring an action seeking: (1)  a motion to vacate or modify the order; or (2)  judicial review of the court's decision. Sec. 153.0102. REQUIREMENTS FOR PARENTAL REUNIFICATION THERAPY PROVIDERS. (a) For purposes of this section, "parental reunification therapy" includes any therapy, treatment, program, camp, or service that is intended to address, repair, or remediate a child's relationship with a parent. (b) An entity that provides parental reunification therapy may not provide services unless the entity operates under a contract for service that: (1) includes explicit details of the entity's processes, protocols, or procedures for the therapy; and (2) is signed by all parties participating in the therapy, after each party is fully informed of the details described by Subdivision (1). (c) A person who has reason to believe that an entity has violated this section may file a complaint with the Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional Counselors or another appropriate licensing authority.

States that have restricted or banned reunification therapy or intensive reunification programs (often referred to as reunification camps):

California: SB 331 (Piqui's Law), introduced by Senator Susan Rubio, was enacted on January 1, 2024. This law prohibits courts from ordering reunification programs, services, or treatments in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse. It also mandates the development of critical training for judicial officers handling domestic violence and child custody matters and establishes reporting requirements to track judicial officers' participation in education and training.

Colorado: HB 24-1350, introduced by Representative Meg Froelich, was enacted in May 2023. This law prohibits courts from ordering any reunification treatment unless there is scientifically valid and widely accepted evidence proving its safety, effectiveness, and therapeutic value. It addresses concerns about past reunification camps that isolated children from trusted caregivers, leading to cases of child abuse. These unregulated programs lacked scientific support and failed to meet professional standards of care.

Arizona: SB 1372, introduced by Senator Bolick, was enacted in April 2023. This law prohibits courts from ordering family reunification treatment that requires a change in custody or parental contact, or the use of threats or certain transport services, unless both parents consent.

Utah: HB 272 (Om's Law), introduced by Senator McKell, was enacted in 2024. This law prohibits courts in child custody cases involving suspected abuse or domestic violence from ordering reunification programs unless they are proven safe and effective. It also prevents courts from requiring the child to be cut off from a safe, bonded parent. Any order must prioritize the child’s safety, focus on the abusive parent’s behavior, and only require mental health treatment if it poses no risk to the child.

Tennessee: HB 940 / SB 722 (Abrial’s Law), introduced by Representative Massey, was enacted in January 2024. This law requires courts in custody cases involving allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, or sexual abuse to rely on current, valid, evidence-based, and peer-reviewed research when making decisions. Courts cannot allow unscientific practices or rely on professionals using such methods. Reunification treatments may only be ordered if scientifically proven to be safe, effective, and therapeutic. Additionally, such treatments cannot involve cutting off a bonded parent, and any efforts to repair a child’s relationship with an accused abusive parent must prioritize addressing the accused parent’s behavior.

New Hampshire: HB 306, introduced by Representatives Gay, Cushman, and Nutter-Upham, was enacted in 2024. This law prohibits courts from ordering family reunification treatments, programs, or services that involve no-contact orders, overnight or multi-day stays, transfers of custody, the use of private transporters involving force or threats, or any coercive or abusive practices. The law takes effect on July 1, 2024.