Custody · Washington · checked 2026-08-21

Custody in Washington.

The starting point the law actually sets, what the judge has to weigh, and the deadlines that catch people out.

Is 50/50 the default in Washington?

No. Nothing is presumed either way.

in either direction. There is no presumption of mutual decision-making and no presumption of equal residential time. On decision-making, RCW 26.09.187(2)(b) requires the court to order SOLE decision-making where a limitation is mandated by RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192, where both parents oppose mutual decision making, or where one parent opposes it and "such opposition is reasonable" under the criteria in (c) — which are the existence of a .191 or .192 limitation, each parent's history of participation in decision-making, whether the parents have a demonstrated ability and desire to cooperate, and the parents' geographic proximity as it affects timely mutual decisions. On time, RCW 26.09.187(3)(b) is permissive only: "Where the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 are not dispositive, the court may order that a child frequently alternate his or her residence between the households of the parents for brief and substantially equal intervals of time if such provision is in the best interests of the child. In determining whether such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child, the court may consider the parties geographic proximity to the extent necessary to ensure the ability to share performance of the parenting functions." And because factor (i) — the relative strength, nature and stability of the child's relationship with each parent — is given the greatest weight by statute, Washington's default gravitates toward the existing pattern of care rather than toward a split down the middle. One more guard: RCW 26.09.191(2)(a) provides that "[i]n entering a permanent parenting plan, the court shall not draw any presumptions from the provisions of the temporary parenting plan."

Use the state’s own words

Washington retired the words "custody" and "visitation" for cases between parents. The controlling document is the "permanent parenting plan" (RCW 26.09.184), and it has three parts: a "residential schedule" saying where the child is on given days, "decision-making authority," and a "dispute resolution" process. Parents have "residential time," not visitation. The word "custodian" survives only in RCW 26.09.285, which lets a parenting plan designate a custodian for the purposes of other statutes — for things like school enrollment and benefits — and that designation is not supposed to affect either parent's rights under the plan.

What do you need?

How Washington decides The paperwork and the people Moving away Later on

4 sections on this page. Pick one, or show everything.

The short version4 points · tap one to jump to it

How Washington decides — Washington splits them explicitly and decides them under different criteria in the same statute.
The paperwork and the people — Washington uses mandatory statewide forms; we could not confirm the current form number, so ask the clerk or check the Washington Courts forms site for the current Parenting Plan form.
Moving away — The Act also carved sexual abuse and sex offenses out of RCW 26.09.191 into an entirely new section, RCW 26.09.192, and amended the relocation factors in RCW 26.09.520 to cross-reference it.
Later on — RCW 26.09.260, and Washington deliberately makes changing the residential schedule hard.

In this subject 4

How Washington decides

Decisions against where the child lives

Washington splits them explicitly and decides them under different criteria in the same statute. Decision-making authority is allocated under RCW 26.09.187(2) and RCW 26.09.184(5) and covers the child's education, health care and religious upbringing; it can be mutual or sole, and either parent may make emergency decisions affecting the child's health or safety regardless of the allocation, and each parent makes day-to-day decisions while the child is with them. The residential schedule is set under RCW 26.09.187(3) and RCW 26.09.184(6). Both are constrained by the restrictions in RCW 26.09.191 and 26.09.192.

What the judge must weigh

The relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent — the statute states expressly: "Factor (i) shall be given the greatest weight"
The agreements of the parties, provided they were entered into knowingly and voluntarily
Each parent's past and potential for future performance of parenting functions, including whether a parent has taken greater responsibility for performing parenting functions relating to the daily needs of the child
The emotional needs and developmental level of the child
The child's relationship with siblings and with other significant adults, as well as the child's involvement with his or her physical surroundings, school, or other significant activities
The wishes of the parents and the wishes of a child who is sufficiently mature to express reasoned and independent preferences as to his or her residential schedule
Each parent's employment schedule, with the court to make accommodations consistent with those schedules

Authority: RCW 26.09.187(3), which applies only "[w]here the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 are not dispositive of the child's residential schedule." That sequencing is the whole architecture of Washington custody law.

What the child wants

Yes, with no age. RCW 26.09.187(3)(a)(vi) lists "[t]he wishes of the parents and the wishes of a child who is sufficiently mature to express reasoned and independent preferences as to his or her residential schedule." Two words are doing the work: "reasoned" and "independent" — the court is asking whether the child has thought it through and whether the view is genuinely the child's own. Separately, RCW 26.09.220(2) provides that a court-appointed investigator must obtain the child's own consent before referring the child to professional personnel for diagnosis if the child has reached age twelve, unless the court finds the child lacks the mental capacity to consent.

Where there has been violence or abuse

RCW 26.09.191 — Mandatory and discretionary limitations in parenting plans — Residential time, decision making, and dispute resolution — Determination not to impose limitations — Definitions.(1) PURPOSE. Parents are responsible for protecting and preserving the health and well-being of their minor children. When a parent acts contrary to the health and well-being of the parent's child, or engages in conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to a child, the court may, and in some situations must, impose limitations intended to protect the child from harm as described in this section and RCW 26.09.192. (2) GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. (a) In entering a permanent parenting plan, the court shall not draw any presumptions from the provisions of the temporary parenting plan. (b) The weight given to the existence of a protection order issued under chapter 7.105 RCW or former chapter 26.50 RCW as to domestic violence is within the discretion of the court. (c) In determining whether any of the conduct described in this section or RCW 26.09.192 has occurred, the court shall apply the rules of evidence and civil procedure except where the parties have opted for an informal family law trial pursuant to state or local court rules. (3) DEFINITIONS. The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this section and RCW 26.09.192 unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (a) "Abusive use of conflict" refers to a party engaging in ongoing and deliberate actions to misuse conflict. This includes, but is not limited to: (i) Repeated bad faith violations of court orders regarding the child or the protection of the child or other parent; (ii) credible threats of physical, emotional, or financial harm to the other parent or to family, friends, or professionals providing support to the child or other parent; (iii) intentional use of the child in conflict; or (iv) abusive litigation as defined in RCW 26.51.020. Litigation that is aggressive or improper but does not meet the definition of abusive litigation shall not constitute a basis for finding abusive use of conflict under this section. Protective actions as defined in this section shall not constitute a basis for a finding of abusive use of conflict. (b) "Child" shall also mean "children." (c) "Knowingly" means knows or reasonably should know. (d) "Parenting functions" has the same meaning as in RCW 26.09.004. (e) "Protective actions" are actions taken by a parent in good faith for the purpose of protecting themselves or the parent's child from the risk of harm posed by the other parent. "Protective actions" can include, but are not limited to: (i) Reports or complaints regarding physical, sexual, or mental abuse of a child or child neglect to an individual or entity connected to the provision of care or safety of the child such as law enforcement, medical professionals, therapists, schools, day cares, or child protective services; (ii) seeking court orders changing residential time; or (iii) petitions for protection or restraining orders. (f) "Sex offense against a child" means any of the following offenses involving a child victim: (i) Any sex offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030; (ii) any offense with a finding of sexual motivation; (iii) any offense in violation of chapter 9A.44 RCW other than RCW 9A.44.132; (iv) any offense involving the sexual abuse of a minor, including any offense under chapter 9.68A RCW; or (v) any federal or out-of-state offense comparable to any offense under (f)(i) through (iv) of this subsection. (g) "Social worker" means a person with a master's degree or further advanced degree from a social work educational program accredited and approved as provided in RCW 18.320.010. (h) "Willful abandonment" has occurred when the child's parent has expressed, either by statement or conduct, an intent to forego, for an extended period, parental rights or responsibilities despite an ability to exercise such rights and responsibilities. "Willful abandonment" does not include a parent who has been unable to see the child due to circumstances that include, but are not limited to: Incarceration, deportation, inpatient treatment, medical emergency, fleeing to an emergency shelter or domestic violence shelter, or withholding of the child by the other parent. (4) RESIDENTIAL TIME LIMITATIONS. (a) PARENTAL CONDUCT REQUIRING LIMITS ON A PARENT'S RESIDENTIAL TIME. A parent's residential time with the parent's child shall be limited if it is found that a parent has engaged in any of the following conduct: (i) Willful abandonment that continues for an extended period of time; (ii) Physical abuse or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; (iii) A history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 7.105.010, an assault that causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm, or any sexual assault; or (iv) Sexual abuse of a child. Required limitations and considerations for a parent who has been convicted of a sex offense against a child or found to have sexually abused a child in the current case or a prior case are addressed in RCW 26.09.192. (b) PARENT RESIDING WITH A PERSON WHOSE CONDUCT REQUIRES RESIDENTIAL TIME LIMITATIONS. A parent's residential time with the child shall be limited if it is found that the parent knowingly resides with a person who has engaged in any of the following conduct: (i) Physical abuse or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; (ii) A history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 7.105.010, an assault that causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm, or any sexual assault; or (iii) Sexual abuse of a child. Required limitations and considerations on a parent who resides with someone convicted of a sex offense against a child or found to have sexually abused a child in the current case or a prior case are addressed in RCW 26.09.192. (c) PARENTAL CONDUCT THAT MAY RESULT IN LIMITATIONS ON A PARENT'S RESIDENTIAL TIME. A parent's involvement or conduct may have an adverse effect on the child's best interests, and the court may preclude or limit any provisions of the parenting plan, if any of the following factors exist: (i) A parent's neglect or substantial nonperformance of parenting functions; (ii) A long-term emotional or physical impairment that interferes with the parent's performance of parenting functions; (iii) A long-term impairment resulting from drug, alcohol, or other substance abuse that interferes with the performance of parenting functions; (iv) The absence or substantial impairment of emotional ties between the parent and the child; (v) A parent has engaged in the abusive use of conflict which creates the danger of serious damage to the child's psychological development; (vi) A parent has withheld from the other parent access to the child for a protracted period without good cause. Withholding does not include protective actions taken by a parent in good faith for the legitimate and lawful purpose of protecting themselves or the parent's child from the risk of harm posed by the other parent; or (vii) Such other factors or conduct as the court expressly finds adverse to the best interests of the child. (d) LIMITATIONS A COURT MAY IMPOSE ON A PARENT'S RESIDENTIAL TIME. The limitations that may be imposed by the court under this section shall be reasonably calculated to protect a child from the physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm that could result if a child has contact with the parent requesting residential time. The limitations shall also be reasonably calculated to provide for the safety of the parent who may be at risk of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm that could result if the parent has contact with the other parent. The limitations the court may impose include, but are not limited to: (i) SUPERVISED VISITATION. A court may, in its discretion, order supervised contact between a child and the parent. (A) If the court requires supervised visitation, there is a presumption that the supervision shall be provided by a professional supervisor. This presumption is overcome if the court finds: (I) There is a lay person who has demonstrated through sworn testimony and evidence of past interactions with children that they are capable and committed to protecting the child from physical or emotional abuse or harm; and (II) the parent is unable to access professional supervision due to (1) geographic isolation or other factors that would make professionally supervised visitation inaccessible or (2) financial indigency that has been demonstrated by a general rule 34 waiver or other evidence that the parent's current income and necessary expenses do not allow for the cost of professional supervision. (B) For all supervision, the court shall include clear written guidelines and prohibitions to be followed by the supervised party. No visits shall take place until the supervised parent and supervisor, or designated representative of a professional supervision program, have signed an acknowledgment confirming that they have read the court orders and the guidelines and prohibitions regarding visitation and agree to follow them. The court shall only permit supervision by an individual or program that is committed to protecting the child from any physical or emotional abuse or harm and is willing and capable of intervening in behaviors inconsistent with the court orders and guidelines. (C) A parent may seek an emergency ex parte order temporarily suspending residential time until review by the court if: (I) The supervised parent repeatedly violates the court order or guidelines; (II) the supervised parent threatens the supervisor or child with physical harm, commits an act of domestic violence, or materially violates any treatment condition associated with any restrictions under this section (a missed counseling appointment does not constitute a violation); (III) the supervisor is unable or unwilling to protect the child and/or the protected parent; or (IV) the supervisor is no longer willing to provide service to the supervised parent. The court suspending residential time shall set a review hearing to take place within 14 days of entering the ex parte order. (ii) EVALUATION OR TREATMENT. The court may order a parent to undergo evaluations for such issues as domestic violence perpetration, substance use disorder, mental health, or anger management, with collateral input provided from the other parent. Any evaluation report that does not include collateral input must provide details as to why and the attempts made to obtain collateral input. (A) The court may also order that a parent complete treatment for any of these issues if the need for treatment is supported by the evidence and the evidence supports a finding that the issue interferes with parenting functions. (B) A parent's residential time and decision-making authority may be conditioned on the parent's completion of an evaluation or treatment ordered by the court. (iii) NO CONTACT. If, based on the evidence, the court expressly finds that limitations on the residential time with a child will not adequately protect a child from the harm or abuse that could result if a child has contact with the parent requesting residential time, the court shall restrain the parent requesting residential time from all contact with a child. (5) LIMITATIONS ON DECISION MAKING AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Except for circumstances provided in subsection (6)(b) of this section, the court shall order sole decision making and no dispute resolution other than court action if it is found that a parent has engaged in any of the following conduct: (a) Willful abandonment that continues for an extended period; (b) Physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; (c) A history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 7.105.010; or (d) An assault that causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm or any sexual assault. (6) DETERMINATION NOT TO IMPOSE LIMITATIONS. (a) If the court makes express written findings based on clear and convincing evidence that contact between the parent and the child will not cause physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm to the child and that the probability that the parent's or other person's harmful or abusive conduct will recur is so remote that it would not be in the child's best interests to apply limitations to residential time under subsection (4) of this section, then the court need not apply the limitations of subsection (4) of this section. This subsection shall not apply to findings of sexual abuse which are governed by RCW 26.09.192. (b) If the court makes express written findings based on clear and convincing evidence that it would be contrary to the child's best interests to order sole decision making or preclude dispute resolution under subsection (5) of this section, the court need not apply those limitations. Where there has been a finding of domestic violence, there is a rebuttable presumption that there will be sole decision making. The court shall not require face-to-face mediation, arbitration, or interventions, including therapeutic interventions, that require the parties to share the same physical or virtual space if there has been a finding of domestic violence. (c) In determining whether there is clear and convincing evidence supporting a determination not to impose limitations, the court shall consider and make express written findings on all of the following factors: (i) Any current risk posed by the parent to the physical or psychological well-being of the child or other parent; (ii) Whether a parent has demonstrated that they can and will prioritize the child's physical and psychological well-being; (iii) Whether a parent has adhered to and is likely to adhere to court orders; (iv) Whether a parent has genuinely acknowledged past harm and is committed to avoiding harm in the future; and (v) A parent's compliance with any previously court-ordered treatment. A parent's compliance with the requirements for participation in a treatment program does not, by itself, constitute evidence that the parent has made the requisite changes. (7) WHEN LIMITATIONS APPLY TO BOTH PARENTS. (a) When mandatory limitations in subsection (4)(a) or (b) of this section apply to both parents, the court may make an exception in applying mandatory limitations. The court shall make detailed written findings regarding the comparative risk of harm to the child posed by each parent, and shall explain the limitations imposed on each parent, including any decision not to impose restrictions on a parent or to award decision making to a parent who is subject to limitations. (b) When mandatory limitations under subsection (4)(a) or (b) of this section apply to one parent and discretionary limitations under subsection (4)(c) of this section apply to another parent, there is a presumption that the mandatory limitations shall have priority in setting the limitations of the residential schedule, decision making, and dispute resolution. If the court deviates from this presumption, the court shall make detailed written findings as to the reasons for the deviation. (c) When discretionary limitations in subsection (4)(c) of this section apply to both parents, the court shall make detailed written findings regarding the comparative risk of harm to the child posed by each parent, and shall explain the limitations imposed on each parent, including any decision not to impose restrictions on a parent or to award decision making to a parent who is subject to limitations in subsection (4)(c) of this section. (d) In making the determinations under (a), (b), or (c) of this subsection, the court shall consider the best interests of the child and which parenting arrangement best maintains a child's emotional growth, health and stability, and physical care. Further, the best interests of the child are ordinarily served when the existing pattern of interaction between a parent and child is altered only to the extent necessitated by the changed relationship of the parents or as required to protect the child from physical, mental, or emotional harm. (8) RIGHTS TO APPEAL. Nothing in this section restricts any right to appeal.

RCW 26.09.192 — Limitations in parenting plans arising from sexual abuse of child or sex offense committed against child — Rebuttable presumption.NOT REPRODUCED IN FULL HERE. Enacted by 2025 c 166 s 2 as a new section. Cited because RCW 26.09.191(4)(a)(iv) and (4)(b)(iii) now expressly hand off sexual-abuse and sex-offense limitations to it: "Required limitations and considerations for a parent who has been convicted of a sex offense against a child or found to have sexually abused a child in the current case or a prior case are addressed in RCW 26.09.192." Its history line reads: [2025 c 166 s 2.]

Recently changed. Rewritten by 2025 c 166. The Act also carved sexual abuse and sex offenses out of RCW 26.09.191 into an entirely new section, RCW 26.09.192, and amended the relocation factors in RCW 26.09.520 to cross-reference it.

Authority: RCW 26.09.191 (mandatory and discretionary limitations in parenting plans), with RCW 26.09.192 (limitations arising from sexual abuse of a child or a sex offense against a child). Published by Washington State Legislature / Office of the Code Reviser (app.leg.wa.gov, the Revised Code of Washington on the state's own site). The publisher states: “The RCW website states "Last update: July 15, 2026" on its Revised Code of Washington landing page (https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/), i.e. the code as published reflects the 2026 Regular Session.”.

The paperwork and the people

The parenting plan

Yes. RCW 26.09.184 requires a permanent parenting plan, and RCW 26.09.184(2) states its required contents: "provisions for resolution of future disputes between the parents, allocation of decision-making authority, and residential provisions for the child." Its stated objectives (RCW 26.09.184(1)) are to provide for the child's physical care, maintain emotional stability, provide for the child's changing needs in a way that minimizes future modifications, set out each parent's authority and responsibilities consistent with RCW 26.09.187 and 26.09.191, minimize the child's exposure to harmful parental conflict, encourage parents to meet their responsibilities by agreement rather than by judicial intervention, and otherwise protect the child's best interests. Washington uses mandatory statewide forms; we could not confirm the current form number, so ask the clerk or check the Washington Courts forms site for the current Parenting Plan form.

Mediation

Not automatically mandatory, but your parenting plan will almost certainly require you to use a dispute resolution process before going back to court. RCW 26.09.184(4) requires the permanent parenting plan to provide a process for resolving disputes other than court action "unless precluded or limited by RCW 26.09.187 or 26.09.191" — it may be counseling, mediation, or arbitration — and the plan must state that preference is given to carrying out the plan, that parents shall use the designated process for disputes about implementing the plan, and that if the court finds a parent has used or frustrated the process without good reason, "the court shall award attorneys' fees and financial sanctions to the prevailing parent." RCW 26.09.015 lets any case be set for mediation before or concurrent with setting a hearing, and requires each superior court to make a mediator available. The exemptions are real and automatic: RCW 26.09.187(1) provides that "[t]he court shall not order a dispute resolution process, except court action, when it finds that any limiting factor under RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 applies, or when it finds that either parent is unable to afford the cost of the proposed dispute resolution process." And under RCW 26.09.191(6)(b), where there has been a finding of domestic violence, the court shall not require face-to-face mediation, arbitration, or interventions requiring the parties to share the same physical or virtual space.

If the court appoints someone to look into it

RCW 26.09.220. The court may order an investigation and report concerning parenting arrangements, may appoint a guardian ad litem under RCW 26.12.175, or both. The investigation and report may be made by the guardian ad litem, a court-appointed special advocate, juvenile court staff, or another professional social service organization experienced in counseling children and families; an "investigator" also includes any third-party professional the court orders or appoints to give an opinion, assessment or evaluation about creating or modifying a parenting plan. The investigator may consult anyone with information about the child, and with the court's order may refer the child for professional diagnosis — but the child's own consent is required if the child is twelve or older, unless the court finds the child lacks capacity. The report must go to counsel and unrepresented parties at least ten days before the hearing, along with the underlying data file, complete texts of diagnostic reports, and the names of everyone consulted. The statute does not state who pays; ask the court at the time of appointment.

Moving away

What you must do before you move

RCW 26.09.430 — Notice requirement.Except as provided in RCW 26.09.460, a person with whom the child resides a majority of the time, or a person with substantially equal residential time, shall notify every other person entitled to residential time or visitation with the child under a court order if the person intends to relocate. Notice shall be given as prescribed in RCW 26.09.440 and 26.09.450.

RCW 26.09.440 — Notice — Contents and delivery.(1) Except as provided in RCW 26.09.450 and 26.09.460, the notice of an intended relocation of the child must be given by: (a) Personal service or any form of mail requiring a return receipt; and (b) No less than: (i) Sixty days before the date of the intended relocation of the child; or (ii) No more than five days after the date that the person knows the information required to be furnished under subsection (2) of this section, if the person did not know and could not reasonably have known the information in sufficient time to provide the sixty-days' notice, and it is not reasonable to delay the relocation. (2)(a) The notice of intended relocation of the child must include: (i) An address at which service of process may be accomplished during the period for objection; (ii) a brief statement of the specific reasons for the intended relocation of the child; and (iii) a notice to the nonrelocating person that an objection to the intended relocation of the child or to the relocating person's proposed revised residential schedule must be filed with the court and served on the opposing person within thirty days or the relocation of the child will be permitted and the residential schedule may be modified pursuant to RCW 26.09.500. The notice shall not be deemed to be in substantial compliance for purposes of RCW 26.09.470 unless the notice contains the following statement: "THE RELOCATION OF THE CHILD WILL BE PERMITTED AND THE PROPOSED REVISED RESIDENTIAL SCHEDULE MAY BE CONFIRMED UNLESS, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, YOU FILE A PETITION AND MOTION WITH THE COURT TO BLOCK THE RELOCATION OR OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED REVISED RESIDENTIAL SCHEDULE AND SERVE THE PETITION AND MOTION ON THE PERSON PROPOSING RELOCATION AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ENTITLED BY COURT ORDER TO RESIDENTIAL TIME OR VISITATION WITH THE CHILD." (b) Except as provided in RCW 26.09.450 and 26.09.460, the following information shall also be included in every notice of intended relocation of the child, if available: (i) The specific street address of the intended new residence, if known, or as much of the intended address as is known, such as city and state; (ii) The new mailing address, if different from the intended new residence address; (iii) The new home telephone number; (iv) The name and address of the child's new school and day care facility, if applicable; (v) The date of the intended relocation of the child; and (vi) A proposal in the form of a proposed parenting plan for a revised schedule of residential time or visitation with the child, if any. (3) A person required to give notice of an intended relocation of the child has a continuing duty to promptly update the information required with the notice as that new information becomes known.

RCW 26.09.480 — Objection to relocation or proposed revised residential schedule.(1) A party objecting to the intended relocation of the child or the relocating parent's proposed revised residential schedule shall do so by filing the objection with the court and serving the objection on the relocating party and all other persons entitled by court order to residential time or visitation with the child by means of personal service or mailing by any form of mail requiring a return receipt to the relocating party at the address designated for service on the notice of intended relocation and to other parties requiring notice at their mailing address. The objection must be filed and served, including a three-day waiting period if the objection is served by mail, within thirty days of receipt of the notice of intended relocation of the child. The objection shall be in the form of: (a) A petition for modification of the parenting plan pursuant to relocation; or (b) other court proceeding adequate to provide grounds for relief. (2) Unless the special circumstances described in RCW 26.09.460 apply, the person intending to relocate the child shall not, without a court order, change the principal residence of the child during the period in which a party may object. The order required under this subsection may be obtained ex parte. If the objecting party notes a court hearing to prevent the relocation of the child for a date not more than fifteen days following timely service of an objection to relocation, the party intending to relocate the child shall not change the principal residence of the child pending the hearing unless the special circumstances described in RCW 26.09.460 (3) apply. (3) The administrator for the courts shall develop a standard form, separate from existing dissolution or modification forms, for use in filing an objection to relocation of the child or objection of the relocating person's proposed revised residential schedule.

RCW 26.09.520 — Basis for determination.The person proposing to relocate with the child shall provide his or her reasons for the intended relocation. There is a rebuttable presumption that the intended relocation of the child will be permitted. A person entitled to object to the intended relocation of the child may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the detrimental effect of the relocation outweighs the benefit of the change to the child and the relocating person, based upon the following factors. The factors listed in this section are not weighted. No inference is to be drawn from the order in which the following factors are listed: (1) The relative strength, nature, quality, extent of involvement, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent, siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life; (2) Prior agreements of the parties; (3) Whether disrupting the contact between the child and the person seeking relocation would be more detrimental to the child than disrupting contact between the child and the person objecting to the relocation; (4) Whether either parent or a person entitled to residential time with the child is subject to limitations under RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192; (5) The reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation and the good faith of each of the parties in requesting or opposing the relocation; (6) The age, developmental stage, and needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation or its prevention will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child; (7) The quality of life, resources, and opportunities available to the child and to the relocating party in the current and proposed geographic locations; (8) The availability of alternative arrangements to foster and continue the child's relationship with and access to the other parent; (9) The alternatives to relocation and whether it is feasible and desirable for the other party to relocate also; (10) The financial impact and logistics of the relocation or its prevention; and (11) For a temporary order, the amount of time before a final decision can be made at trial.

Authority: Washington Child Relocation Act, RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 — specifically RCW 26.09.430, 26.09.440, 26.09.480 and 26.09.520. Published by Washington State Legislature / Office of the Code Reviser (app.leg.wa.gov, the Revised Code of Washington on the state's own site). The publisher states: “The RCW website states "Last update: July 15, 2026" on its Revised Code of Washington landing page (https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/), i.e. the code as published reflects the 2026 Regular Session.”.

Later on

Changing the order

RCW 26.09.260, and Washington deliberately makes changing the residential schedule hard. Under (1), the court shall not modify a prior parenting plan unless it finds, on facts arising since the prior plan or unknown to the court then, "that a substantial change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the nonmoving party and that the modification is in the best interest of the child and is necessary to serve the best interests of the child." Read that carefully: the change must be in the child's circumstances or the NON-moving parent's — a change in your own circumstances does not count. Under (2), the court must retain the existing residential schedule unless the parents agree; or the child has been integrated into the moving parent's family with the other parent's consent in substantial deviation from the plan; or "[t]he child's present environment is detrimental to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child"; or the nonmoving parent has been held in contempt at least twice within three years for failing to comply with residential time provisions, or convicted of custodial interference in the first or second degree. There is no statutory waiting period, but there are lighter routes for small changes: under (5), the court may adjust the residential schedule on a substantial change in circumstances of either parent or the child, without the (2) factors, if the change is minor — not changing which home the child is in the majority of the time and either not exceeding twenty-four full days a year, or based on a move by the non-majority parent or an involuntary work-schedule change, or not resulting in more than ninety overnights per year where the court finds the current plan does not give reasonable time with that parent. A parent's military duties, by themselves, are not a substantial change justifying permanent modification. To change an existing order, see how to modify custody and parenting time in Washington.

If you were never married

Washington runs custody for never-married parents through the same parenting plan system, but the parent-child relationship has to be established first. RCW 26.26A.100 lists the ways: giving birth to the child; a presumption of parentage under RCW 26.26A.115 that has not been overcome or validly denied; adjudication as a parent; adoption; acknowledging parentage under RCW 26.26A.200 through .265 (the acknowledgment of parentage, commonly signed at the hospital), unless rescinded or successfully challenged; or establishment under the surrogacy or assisted-reproduction provisions. Once parentage exists, the parenting plan requirements of chapter 26.09 apply and you are in the same framework as divorcing parents.

The thing to understand about Washington is the order of operations. Before a judge ever reaches the seven best-interest factors, she asks whether RCW 26.09.191 applies — and if it does, the answer to the residential schedule question may already be determined. That is why Washington cases are so often fought over a .191 finding rather than over the factors. Two practical consequences. First, a .191 finding does more than limit overnights: it also forces sole decision-making and shuts off mediation and arbitration entirely, sending every future dispute back to a judge. Second, the escape hatch is narrow — clear and convincing evidence plus express written findings on five specific questions — and the statute says outright that completing a treatment program does not by itself prove you have changed. The other Washington surprise cuts the other way: if you are the parent the child lives with most of the time and you want to move, the law is on your side. RCW 26.09.520 presumes the relocation will be permitted, and it is the objecting parent who has to prove the harm outweighs the benefit. Just give the sixty days' notice in the required form — that part is not optional.

What we could not confirm

We could not confirm the current number of Washington's mandatory statewide Parenting Plan form, or the exact procedure for the "adequate cause" threshold showing you must make before the court will hold a full modification hearing. Ask the superior court clerk in your county, or check the Washington Courts forms site, for the current Parenting Plan form before you file.

Compare all fifty states

Where 50/50 really is the default, and the twenty-six states where nothing is presumed.

See the comparison →

And the money side

How Washington calculates child support, and the overnight number that changes it.

Child support in Washington →

Know someone in Washington staring at this number?

A straight answer about money is more useful than most advice, and it costs nothing to pass along. Nothing here asks for their real name, and nobody finds out they looked.

Text it Email it More ways

More on Washington

The rest of what we have written about Washington. Every figure is quoted from Washington’s own statute or its courts’ own published schedule, and carries the date we last checked it.

Sources last checked21 August 2026

Page published21 August 2026

What this means. This is when the sources on this page were last read against their originals — statutes, court rules, official schedules — taken from the date this page was built from its sources. It is not the date the page was last edited. Adding a link or fixing a typo does not move it; re-reading the statute does. Law changes without notice, so treat anything time-sensitive as needing a fresh check. Where we get something wrong we publish it at thecusp.app/corrections with the date, what changed, and how long the error was live.