title: RCW 26.09.191

text:
(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.
[ 2025 c 166 s 1; 2021 c 215 s 134; 2020 c 311 s 8; 2019 c 46 s 5020; 2017 c 234 s 2; 2011 c 89 s 6; 2007 c 496 s 303; 2004 c 38 s 12; 1996 c 303 s 1; 1994 c 267 s 1. Prior: 1989 c 375 s 11; 1989 c 326 s 1; 1987 c 460 s 10.]
Notes:
Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Effective date—2020 c 311: See RCW 26.51.901.
Effective date—2011 c 89: See note following RCW 18.320.005.
Findings—2011 c 89: See RCW 18.320.005.
Part headings not law—2007 c 496: See note following RCW 26.09.002.
Effective date—2004 c 38: See note following RCW 18.155.075.
Effective date—1996 c 303: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [March 30, 1996]." [ 1996 c 303 s 3.]
Effective date—1994 c 267: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [April 1, 1994]." [ 1994 c 267 s 6.]

catchline: Mandatory and discretionary limitations in parenting plans—Residential time, decision making, and dispute resolution—Determination not to impose limitations—Definitions.


doc_type: statute

jurisdiction: wa

title: RCW 26.09.192

text:
This section governs limitations on residential provisions, decision-making authority, and dispute resolution when a parent, or a person the parent resides with, has been convicted of a sex offense against a child or found to have sexually abused a child.
(1) SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS. If a parent has been found to be a sexually violent predator under chapter 71.09 RCW or under an analogous statute of any other jurisdiction, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with a child that would otherwise be allowed under this chapter. If a parent resides with an adult or a juvenile who has been found to be a sexually violent predator under chapter 71.09 RCW or under an analogous statute of any other jurisdiction, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with the parent's child except contact that occurs outside the predator's presence.
(2) CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE BY PARENT.
(a) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense against any child in this or another jurisdiction poses a present danger to a child. Unless the parent rebuts this presumption, the court shall restrain the parent from all contact with the parent's child that would otherwise be allowed under this chapter.
(b) The court shall not enter an order allowing a parent to have contact with the parent's child if the parent has been found by a preponderance of the evidence in a dependency or family law action, including in the current case, to have sexually abused that child, except upon recommendation by an evaluator or therapist for the child that the child is ready for contact with the parent and will not be harmed by the contact.
(3) PARENT RESIDING WITH A PERSON FOUND TO HAVE SEXUALLY ABUSED A CHILD.
(a) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who knowingly resides with a person who, as an adult, has been convicted of a sex offense against a child, or as a juvenile has been adjudicated of a sex offense against a child at least eight years younger, in this or another jurisdiction, places a child at risk of abuse or harm when that parent exercises residential time in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person. Unless the parent rebuts the presumption, the court shall restrain the parent from contact with the parent's child except for contact that occurs outside of the convicted or adjudicated person's presence.
(b) The court shall not enter an order allowing a parent to have contact with the child in the offender's presence if the parent resides with a person who has been found by a preponderance of the evidence in a dependency or family law action, including in the current case, to have sexually abused a child, unless the court finds that the parent accepts that the person engaged in the harmful conduct and the parent is willing to and capable of protecting the child from harm from the person.
(4) REBUTTING THE PRESUMPTION OF NO CONTACT.
(a) OFFENDING PARENT. The presumption established in subsection (2)(a) of this section may be rebutted only after a written finding based on clear and convincing evidence that:
(i) If the child was not the victim of the sex offense committed by the parent requesting residential time, (A) contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, and (B) the offending parent has provided documentation that they have successfully completed treatment for sex offenders or are engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court; or
(ii) If the child was the victim of the sex offense committed by the parent requesting residential time, (A) contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, (B) if the child is in or has been in therapy for victims of sexual abuse, the child's counselor believes such contact between the child and the offending parent is in the child's best interest, and (C) the offending parent has provided documentation that they have successfully completed treatment for sex offenders or are engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court.
(b) PARENT RESIDES WITH OFFENDING PERSON. The presumption established in subsection (3)(a) of this section may be rebutted only after a written finding based on clear and convincing evidence that:
(i) If the child was not the victim of the sex offense committed by the person who is residing with the parent requesting residential time, (A) contact between the child and the parent residing with the convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and that parent is able to protect the child in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person, and (B) the convicted or adjudicated person has provided documentation that they have successfully completed treatment for sex offenders or are engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court; or
(ii) If the child was the victim of the sex offense committed by the person who is residing with the parent requesting residential time, (A) contact between the child and the parent in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, (B) if the child is in or has been in therapy for victims of sexual abuse, the child's counselor believes such contact between the child and the parent residing with the convicted or adjudicated person in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated person is in the child's best interest, and (C) the convicted or adjudicated person has provided documentation that they have successfully completed treatment for sex offenders or are engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a court.
(c) CONTACT IF PRESUMPTION REBUTTED.
(i)(A) If the court finds that the parent has met the burden of rebutting the presumption under (a) of this subsection, the court may allow a parent who has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense against a child to have residential time with the child supervised by a neutral and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such residential time.
(B) The court shall not approve of a supervisor for contact between the child and the parent unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing or capable of protecting the child;
(ii) If the court finds that the parent has met the burden of rebutting the presumption under (b) of this subsection, the court may allow a parent residing with a person who has been convicted of a sex offense against a child or adjudicated of a juvenile sex offense with a child at least eight years younger to have residential time with the child in the presence of that person, supervised by a neutral and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such residential time. The supervisor may be the parent if the court finds, based on the evidence, that the parent is willing and capable of protecting the child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the supervisor, including the parent, upon finding, based on the evidence, that the supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer willing or capable of protecting the child;
(iii) A court shall not order unsupervised contact between the offending parent and a child of the offending parent who was sexually abused by that parent;
(iv) A court may order unsupervised contact between the offending parent and a child who was not sexually abused by the parent after the presumption under subsection (2)(a) of this section has been rebutted pursuant to (a) of this subsection and supervised residential time has occurred for at least two years with no further arrests or convictions of sex offenses involving children and (A) the sex offense of the offending parent was not committed against a child of the offending parent, and (B) the court finds that unsupervised contact between the child and the offending parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, after consideration of the testimony of a state-certified therapist, mental health counselor, or social worker with expertise in treating child sexual abuse victims who has supervised at least one period of residential time between the parent and the child, and after consideration of evidence of the offending parent's compliance with community supervision requirements, if any. If the offending parent was not ordered by a court to participate in treatment for sex offenders, then the parent shall obtain a psychosexual evaluation conducted by a certified sex offender treatment provider or a certified affiliate sex offender treatment provider indicating that the offender has the lowest likelihood of risk to reoffend before the court grants unsupervised contact between the parent and a child.
(5) RESTRICTED DECISION MAKING AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The parenting plan shall not require mutual decision making or designation of a dispute resolution process other than court action if it is found that a parent has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense against any child in this or any other jurisdiction or has been found to be a sexually violent predator under chapter 71.09 RCW or under an analogous statute of any other jurisdiction.
[ 2025 c 166 s 2.]

license: public-domain-government-work

rule_set: Revised Code of Washington

catchline: Limitations in parenting plans arising from sexual abuse of child or sex offense committed against child—Rebuttable presumption.

code: rcw

unit: section

court: Washington State Legislature


title: RCW 26.09.194

text:
(1) A parent seeking a temporary order relating to parenting shall file and serve a proposed temporary parenting plan by motion. The other parent, if contesting the proposed temporary parenting plan, shall file and serve a responsive proposed parenting plan. Either parent may move to have a proposed temporary parenting plan entered as part of a temporary order. The parents may enter an agreed temporary parenting plan at any time as part of a temporary order. The proposed temporary parenting plan may be supported by relevant evidence and shall be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration which shall state at a minimum the following:
(a) The name, address, and length of residence with the person or persons with whom the child has lived for the preceding twelve months;
(b) The performance by each parent during the last twelve months of the parenting functions relating to the daily needs of the child;
(c) The parents' work and child-care schedules for the preceding twelve months;
(d) The parents' current work and child-care schedules; and
(e) Any of the circumstances set forth in RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 that are likely to pose a serious risk to the child and that warrant limitation on the award to a parent of temporary residence or time with the child pending entry of a permanent parenting plan.
(2) At the hearing, the court shall enter a temporary parenting order incorporating a temporary parenting plan which includes:
(a) A schedule for the child's time with each parent when appropriate;
(b) Designation of a temporary residence for the child;
(c) Allocation of decision-making authority, if any. Absent allocation of decision-making authority consistent with RCW 26.09.187(2), neither party shall make any decision for the child other than those relating to day-to-day or emergency care of the child, which shall be made by the party who is present with the child;
(d) Provisions for temporary support for the child; and
(e) Restraining orders, if applicable, under RCW 26.09.060.
(3) A parent may make a motion for an order to show cause and the court may enter a temporary order, including a temporary parenting plan, upon a showing of necessity.
(4) A parent may move for amendment of a temporary parenting plan, and the court may order amendment to the temporary parenting plan, if the amendment conforms to the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 and 26.09.192 and is in the best interest of the child.
(5) If a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or dissolution of domestic partnership, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity is dismissed, any temporary order or temporary parenting plan is vacated.
[ 2025 c 166 s 5; 2008 c 6 s 1045; 1987 c 460 s 13.]
Notes:
Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.

catchline: Proposed temporary parenting plan—Temporary order—Amendment—Vacation of order.


title: RCW 26.09.197

text:
After considering the affidavit required by RCW 26.09.194(1) and other relevant evidence presented, the court shall make a temporary parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child. In making this determination, the court shall give particular consideration to:
(1) The relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent; and
(2) Which parenting arrangements will cause the least disruption to the child's emotional stability while the action is pending.
The court shall also consider the factors used to determine residential provisions in the permanent parenting plan.
[ 2007 c 496 s 604; 1987 c 460 s 14.]
Notes:
Part headings not law—2007 c 496: See note following RCW 26.09.002.

catchline: Issuance of temporary parenting plan—Criteria.


title: RCW 26.09.210

text:
The court may interview the child in chambers to ascertain the child's wishes as to the child's residential schedule in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity. The court may permit counsel to be present at the interview. The court shall cause a record of the interview to be made and to be made part of the record in the case.
The court may seek the advice of professional personnel whether or not they are employed on a regular basis by the court. The advice given shall be in writing and shall be made available by the court to counsel upon request. Counsel may call for cross-examination any professional personnel consulted by the court.
[ 2008 c 6 s 1018; 1987 c 460 s 15; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 s 21.]
Notes:
Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.

catchline: Parenting plans—Interview with child by court—Advice of professional personnel.


title: RCW 26.09.220

text:
(1)(a) The court may order an investigation and report concerning parenting arrangements for the child, or may appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to RCW 26.12.175, or both. The investigation and report may be made by the guardian ad litem, court-appointed special advocate, the staff of the juvenile court, or other professional social service organization experienced in counseling children and families.
(b) An investigator is a person appointed as an investigator under RCW 26.12.050(1)(b) or any other third-party professional ordered or appointed by the court to provide an opinion, assessment, or evaluation regarding the creation or modification of a parenting plan.
(2) In preparing the report concerning a child, the investigator or person appointed under subsection (1) of this section may consult any person who may have information about the child and the potential parenting or custodian arrangements. Upon order of the court, the investigator or person appointed under subsection (1) of this section may refer the child to professional personnel for diagnosis. The investigator or person appointed under subsection (1) of this section may consult with and obtain information from medical, psychiatric, or other expert persons who have served the child in the past without obtaining the consent of the parent or the child's custodian; but the child's consent must be obtained if the child has reached the age of twelve, unless the court finds that the child lacks mental capacity to consent. If the requirements of subsection (3) of this section are fulfilled, the report by the investigator or person appointed under subsection (1) of this section may be received in evidence at the hearing.
(3) The investigator or person appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall provide his or her report to counsel and to any party not represented by counsel at least ten days prior to the hearing unless a shorter time is ordered by the court for good cause shown. The investigator or person appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall make available to counsel and to any party not represented by counsel his or her file of underlying data and reports, complete texts of diagnostic reports made to the investigator or appointed person pursuant to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, and the names and addresses of all persons whom he or she has consulted. Any party to the proceeding may call the investigator or person appointed under subsection (1) of this section and any person whom the investigator or appointed person has consulted for cross-examination. A party may not waive the right of cross-examination prior to the hearing.
[ 2011 c 292 s 4; 1993 c 289 s 1; 1989 c 375 s 12; 1987 c 460 s 16; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 s 22.]

catchline: Parenting arrangements—Investigation and report—Appointment of guardian ad litem.


title: RCW 26.09.225

text:
(1) Each parent shall have full and equal access to the education and health care records of the child absent a court order to the contrary. Neither parent may veto the access requested by the other parent.
(2) Educational records are limited to academic, attendance, and disciplinary records of public and private schools in all grades kindergarten through twelve and any form of alternative school for all periods for which child support is paid or the child is the dependent in fact of the parent requesting access to the records.
(3) Educational records of postsecondary educational institutions are limited to enrollment and academic records necessary to determine, establish, or continue support ordered pursuant to RCW 26.19.090.
[ 1991 sp.s. c 28 s 3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 2 s 18; 1987 c 460 s 17.]
Notes:
Severability—Effective date—Captions not law—1991 sp.s. c 28: See notes following RCW 26.09.100.
Effective dates—Severability—1990 1st ex.s. c 2: See notes following RCW 26.09.100.

catchline: Access to child's education and health care records.


title: RCW 26.09.231

text:
The parties to dissolution matters shall file with the clerk of the court the residential time summary report. The summary report shall be on the form developed by the administrative office of the courts in consultation with the department of social and health services division of child support. The parties must complete the form and file the form with the court order.
[ 2017 c 183 s 2; 2007 c 496 s 701.]
Notes:
Part headings not law—2007 c 496: See note following RCW 26.09.002.

catchline: Residential time summary report.


title: RCW 26.09.255

text:
(1) A relative may bring civil action against any other relative if, with intent to deny access to a child by that relative of the child who has a right to physical custody of or visitation with the child or a parent with whom the child resides pursuant to a parenting plan order, the relative takes, entices, or conceals the child from that relative. The plaintiff may be awarded, in addition to any damages awarded by the court, the reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiff in locating the child, including, but not limited to, investigative services and reasonable attorneys' fees.
(2) "Relative" means an ancestor, descendant, or sibling including a relative of the same degree through marriage, domestic partnership, or adoption, or a spouse or domestic partner.
[ 2008 c 6 s 1019; 1987 c 460 s 22; 1984 c 95 s 6.]
Notes:
Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Severability—1984 c 95: See note following RCW 9A.40.060.

catchline: Remedies when a child is taken, enticed, or concealed.


title: RCW 26.09.260

text:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4), (5), (6), (8), and (10) of this section, the court shall not modify a prior custody decree or a parenting plan unless it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or plan or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree or plan, 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. The effect of a parent's military duties potentially impacting parenting functions shall not, by itself, be a substantial change of circumstances justifying a permanent modification of a prior decree or plan.
(2) In applying these standards, the court shall retain the residential schedule established by the decree or parenting plan unless:
(a) The parents agree to the modification;
(b) The child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner with the consent of the other parent in substantial deviation from the parenting plan;
(c) The 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
(d) The court has found the nonmoving parent in contempt of court at least twice within three years because the parent failed to comply with the residential time provisions in the court-ordered parenting plan, or the parent has been convicted of custodial interference in the first or second degree under RCW 9A.40.060 or 9A.40.070.
(3) A conviction of custodial interference in the first or second degree under RCW 9A.40.060 or 9A.40.070 shall constitute a substantial change of circumstances for the purposes of this section.
(4) The court may reduce or restrict contact between the child and the parent with whom the child does not reside a majority of the time if it finds that the reduction or restriction would serve and protect the best interests of the child using the criteria in RCW 26.09.191 and 26.09.192.
(5) The court may order adjustments to the residential aspects of a parenting plan upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances of either parent or of the child, and without consideration of the factors set forth in subsection (2) of this section, if the proposed modification is only a minor modification in the residential schedule that does not change the residence the child is scheduled to reside in the majority of the time and:
(a) Does not exceed twenty-four full days in a calendar year; or
(b) Is based on a change of residence of the parent with whom the child does not reside the majority of the time or an involuntary change in work schedule by a parent which makes the residential schedule in the parenting plan impractical to follow; or
(c) Does not result in a schedule that exceeds ninety overnights per year in total, if the court finds that, at the time the petition for modification is filed, the decree of dissolution or parenting plan does not provide reasonable time with the parent with whom the child does not reside a majority of the time, and further, the court finds that it is in the best interests of the child to increase residential time with the parent in excess of the residential time period in (a) of this subsection. However, any motion under this subsection (5)(c) is subject to the factors established in subsection (2) of this section if the party bringing the petition has previously been granted a modification under this same subsection within twenty-four months of the current motion. Relief granted under this section shall not be the sole basis for adjusting or modifying child support.
(6) The court may order adjustments to the residential aspects of a parenting plan pursuant to a proceeding to permit or restrain a relocation of the child. The person objecting to the relocation of the child or the relocating person's proposed revised residential schedule may file a petition to modify the parenting plan, including a change of the residence in which the child resides the majority of the time, without a showing of adequate cause other than the proposed relocation itself. A hearing to determine adequate cause for modification shall not be required so long as the request for relocation of the child is being pursued. In making a determination of a modification pursuant to relocation of the child, the court shall first determine whether to permit or restrain the relocation of the child using the procedures and standards provided in RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560. Following that determination, the court shall determine what modification pursuant to relocation should be made, if any, to the parenting plan or custody order or visitation order.
(7) A parent with whom the child does not reside a majority of the time and whose residential time with the child is subject to limitations pursuant to RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 may not seek expansion of residential time under subsection (5)(c) of this section unless that parent demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances specifically related to the basis for the limitation.
(8)(a) If a parent with whom the child does not reside a majority of the time voluntarily fails to exercise residential time for an extended period, that is, one year or longer, the court upon proper motion may make adjustments to the parenting plan in keeping with the best interests of the minor child.
(b) For the purposes of determining whether the parent has failed to exercise residential time for one year or longer, the court may not count any time periods during which the parent did not exercise residential time due to the effect of the parent's military duties potentially impacting parenting functions.
(9) A parent with whom the child does not reside a majority of the time who is required by the existing parenting plan to complete evaluations, treatment, parenting, or other classes may not seek expansion of residential time under subsection (5)(c) of this section unless that parent has fully complied with such requirements.
(10) The court may order adjustments to any of the nonresidential aspects of a parenting plan upon a showing of a substantial change of circumstances of either parent or of a child, and the adjustment is in the best interest of the child. Adjustments ordered under this section may be made without consideration of the factors set forth in subsection (2) of this section.
(11) If the parent with whom the child resides a majority of the time receives temporary duty, deployment, activation, or mobilization orders from the military that involve moving a substantial distance away from the parent's residence or otherwise would have a material effect on the parent's ability to exercise parenting functions and primary placement responsibilities, then:
(a) Any temporary custody order for the child during the parent's absence shall end no later than ten days after the returning parent provides notice to the temporary custodian, but shall not impair the discretion of the court to conduct an expedited or emergency hearing for resolution of the child's residential placement upon return of the parent and within ten days of the filing of a motion alleging an immediate danger of irreparable harm to the child. If a motion alleging immediate danger has not been filed, the motion for an order restoring the previous residential schedule shall be granted; and
(b) The temporary duty, activation, mobilization, or deployment and the temporary disruption to the child's schedule shall not be a factor in a determination of change of circumstances if a motion is filed to transfer residential placement from the parent who is a military service member.
(12) If a parent receives military temporary duty, deployment, activation, or mobilization orders that involve moving a substantial distance away from the military parent's residence or otherwise have a material effect on the military parent's ability to exercise residential time or visitation rights, at the request of the military parent, the court may delegate the military parent's residential time or visitation rights, or a portion thereof, to a child's family member, including a stepparent, or another person other than a parent, with a close and substantial relationship to the minor child for the duration of the military parent's absence, if delegating residential time or visitation rights is in the child's best interest. The court may not permit the delegation of residential time or visitation rights to a person who would be subject to limitations on residential time under RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192. The parties shall attempt to resolve disputes regarding delegation of residential time or visitation rights through the dispute resolution process specified in their parenting plan, unless excused by the court for good cause shown. Such a court-ordered temporary delegation of a military parent's residential time or visitation rights does not create separate rights to residential time or visitation for a person other than a parent.
(13) If the court finds that a motion to modify a prior decree or parenting plan has been brought in bad faith, the court shall assess the attorney's fees and court costs of the nonmoving parent against the moving party.
[ 2025 c 166 s 6; 2009 c 502 s 3; 2000 c 21 s 19; 1999 c 174 s 1; 1991 c 367 s 9. Prior: 1989 c 375 s 14; 1989 c 318 s 3; 1987 c 460 s 19; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 s 26.]
Notes:
Applicability—2000 c 21: See RCW 26.09.405.
Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.
Severability—Effective date—Captions not law—1991 c 367: See notes following RCW 26.09.015.
Severability—1989 c 318: See note following RCW 26.09.160.

catchline: Modification of parenting plan or custody decree.


title: RCW 26.09.270

text:
A party seeking a temporary custody order or a temporary parenting plan or modification of a custody decree or parenting plan shall submit together with his or her motion, an affidavit setting forth facts supporting the requested order or modification and shall give notice, together with a copy of his or her affidavit, to other parties to the proceedings, who may file opposing affidavits. The court shall deny the motion unless it finds that adequate cause for hearing the motion is established by the affidavits, in which case it shall set a date for hearing on an order to show cause why the requested order or modification should not be granted.
[ 2011 c 336 s 691; 1989 c 375 s 15; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 s 27.]

catchline: Child custody—Temporary custody order, temporary parenting plan, or modification of custody decree—Affidavits required.


title: RCW 26.09.280

text:
Every action or proceeding to change, modify, or enforce any final order, judgment, or decree entered in any dissolution or legal separation or declaration concerning the validity of a marriage or domestic partnership, whether under this chapter or prior law, regarding the parenting plan or child support for the minor children of the marriage or the domestic partnership may be brought in the county where the minor children are then residing, or in the court in which the final order, judgment, or decree was entered, or in the county where the parent or other person who has the care, custody, or control of the children is then residing.
[ 2008 c 6 s 1020; 1991 c 367 s 10; 1987 c 460 s 20; 1975 c 32 s 4; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 s 28.]
Notes:
Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Severability—Effective date—Captions not law—1991 c 367: See notes following RCW 26.09.015.

catchline: Parenting plan or child support modification or enforcement—Venue.


title: RCW 26.09.285

text:
Solely for the purposes of all other state and federal statutes which require a designation or determination of custody, a parenting plan shall designate the parent with whom the child is scheduled to reside a majority of the time as the custodian of the child. However, this designation shall not affect either parent's rights and responsibilities under the parenting plan. In the absence of such a designation, the parent with whom the child is scheduled to reside the majority of the time shall be deemed to be the custodian of the child for the purposes of such federal and state statutes.
[ 1989 c 375 s 16; 1987 c 460 s 21.]

catchline: Designation of custody for the purpose of other state and federal statutes.


title: RCW 26.09.290

text:
Whenever either of the parties in an action for dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership is, under the law, entitled to a final judgment, but by mistake, negligence, or inadvertence the same has not been signed, filed, or entered, if no appeal has been taken from the interlocutory order or motion for a new trial made, the court, on the motion of either party thereto or upon its own motion, may cause a final judgment to be signed, dated, filed, and entered therein granting the dissolution as of the date when the same could have been given or made by the court if applied for. The court may cause such final judgment to be signed, dated, filed, and entered nunc pro tunc as aforesaid, even though a final judgment may have been previously entered where by mistake, negligence or inadvertence the same has not been signed, filed, or entered as soon as such final judgment, the parties to such action shall be deemed to have been restored to the status of single persons as of the date affixed to such judgment, and any marriage or any domestic partnership of either of such parties subsequent to six months after the granting of the interlocutory order as shown by the minutes of the court, and after the final judgment could have been entered under the law if applied for, shall be valid for all purposes as of the date affixed to such final judgment, upon the filing thereof.
[ 2008 c 6 s 1021; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 s 29.]
Notes:
Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.

catchline: Final decree of dissolution nunc pro tunc.


title: RCW 26.09.300

text:
(1) Whenever a restraining order is issued under this chapter, and the person to be restrained knows of the order, a violation of the provisions restricting the person from acts or threats of violence or of a provision restraining the person from going onto the grounds of or entering the residence, workplace, school, or day care of another, or prohibiting the person from knowingly coming within, or knowingly remaining within, a specified distance of a location, a protected party's person, or a protected party's vehicle, is punishable under RCW 7.105.450.
(2) A person is deemed to have notice of a restraining order if:
(a) The person to be restrained or the person's attorney signed the order;
(b) The order recites that the person to be restrained or the person's attorney appeared in person before the court;
(c) The order was served upon the person to be restrained; or
(d) The peace officer gives the person oral or written evidence of the order by reading from it or handing to the person a certified copy of the original order, certified to be an accurate copy of the original by a notary public or by the clerk of the court.
(3) A peace officer shall verify the existence of a restraining order by:
(a) Obtaining information confirming the existence and terms of the order from a law enforcement agency; or
(b) Obtaining a certified copy of the order, certified to be an accurate copy of the original by a notary public or by the clerk of the court.
(4) A peace officer shall arrest and take into custody, pending release on bail, personal recognizance, or court order, a person without a warrant when the officer has probable cause to believe that:
(a) A restraining order has been issued under this chapter;
(b) The respondent or person to be restrained knows of the order; and
(c) The person to be arrested has violated the terms of the order restraining the person from acts or threats of violence or restraining the person from going onto the grounds of or entering the residence, workplace, school, or day care of another, or prohibiting the person from knowingly coming within, or knowingly remaining within, a specified distance of a location.
(5) It is a defense to prosecution under subsection (1) of this section that the court order was issued contrary to law or court rule.
(6) No peace officer may be held criminally or civilly liable for making an arrest under subsection (4) of this section if the officer acts in good faith and without malice.
[ 2021 c 215 s 135; 2000 c 119 s 21; 1996 c 248 s 9; 1995 c 246 s 27; 1984 c 263 s 28; 1974 ex.s. c 99 s 1.]
Notes:
Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Application—2000 c 119: See note following RCW 10.31.100.

catchline: Restraining orders—Notice—Refusal to comply—Arrest—Penalty—Defense—Peace officers, immunity.


title: RCW 26.09.310

text:
No health care provider or facility, or their agent, shall be liable for damages in any civil action brought by a parent or guardian based only on a lack of the parent or guardian's consent for medical care of a minor child, if consent to the care has been given by a parent or guardian of the minor. The immunity provided by this section shall apply regardless of whether:
(1) The parents are married, unmarried, in a domestic partnership or not, or separated at the time of consent or treatment;
(2) The consenting parent is, or is not, a custodial parent of the minor;
(3) The giving of consent by a parent is, or is not, full performance of any agreement between the parents, or of any order or decree in any action entered pursuant to chapter 26.09 RCW;
(4) The action or suit is brought by or on behalf of the nonconsenting parent, the minor child, or any other person.
[ 2008 c 6 s 1022; 1989 c 377 s 1.]
Notes:
Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.

catchline: Provision of health care to minor—Immunity of health care provider.


title: RCW 26.09.315

text:
In any proceeding under this chapter where the custody or care of a minor child is at issue or in dispute, information on the harmful effects of parental abduction shall be included in any packet of information or materials provided to the parties, or in any parenting class or seminar that is offered to or required of the parties. The information shall include the following:
PAMPHLET REGARDING THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF PARENTAL ABDUCTION IN
CHILD CUSTODY CASES
Child custody disputes can sometimes lead one parent or the other to abduct one or more of their children. Each year approximately two hundred fifty thousand children in the United States are abducted by a noncustodial or custodial parent in violation of the law.
Child abduction, including abduction by a parent, commonly leads to growing fear, confusion, and general mistrust on the part of the child. Parental abduction means a loss of the parent left behind, extended family, friends, pets, community, and familiar surroundings that provide children with a sense of security and well-being. Such losses may be very traumatic for a child leading to long-term, adverse effects as the child grows.
Given the need to maintain secrecy by the abducting parent, children who are parentally abducted often:
(1) Fail to receive an adequate education;
(2) Fail to receive adequate medical care;
(3) Live in substandard housing;
(4) Are told the parent left behind is a bad person, does not want the child, or is deceased;
(5) Are instructed to lie to remain anonymous and hidden;
(6) Are fearful of leaving their residence;
(7) Are fearful of encountering law enforcement and other security personnel.
If and when returned, abducted children often live in apprehension of being abducted again. Just as abused children may identify with and seek the approval of their abuser, abducted children may do the same with their abductor. Once returned the child may feel anger and resentment at the parent who was left behind because the child now does not have visitation or communication with the abducting parent.
The returned child may suffer loyalty conflicts, emotional detachment, and feelings of betrayal by providing information about the abducting parent who broke the law. An inability to trust adults in general can hinder the child's ability to form lasting relationships even long into adulthood.
If the child is very young when abducted and is returned as an older child, the child may suffer serious negative emotional effects because the child feels as if he or she is returned to a stranger and therefore the return to the parent who was originally left behind seems like an abduction itself.
Parents need to understand that even though their relationship with each other may be strained or even toxic, their children often have a strong, loving, trusting relationship with both parents.
A parent who is considering abducting his or her child should know and understand the potential short-term and long-term traumatic impacts that parental abduction has on a child and consider only those actions that will be lawful and will contribute to the child's best interests.
[ 2013 c 91 s 1.]

catchline: Child custody issues—Abduction by parent—Information.


title: RCW 26.09.320

text:
(1) When a child support order contains language providing for abatement based on incarceration of the person required to pay child support, there is a rebuttable presumption that an incarcerated person is unable to pay the child support obligation. Unless the presumption is rebutted, the provisions of subsection (3) of this section apply.
(2)(a) If the child support order does not contain language providing for abatement based on incarceration of the person required to pay support, the department, the person required to pay support, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support may commence an action in the appropriate forum to:
(i) Modify the support order to contain abatement language; and
(ii) Abate the person's child support obligation due to current incarceration for at least six months.
(b) In a proceeding brought under this subsection, there is a rebuttable presumption that an incarcerated person is unable to pay the child support obligation. The department, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support, may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the person required to pay support has possession of, or access to, income or assets available to provide support while incarcerated.
(c) Unless the presumption is rebutted, the provisions of subsection (3) of this section apply.
(3) If the court or administrative forum determines that abatement of support is appropriate:
(a) The child support obligation under that order will be abated to ten dollars per month, without regard to the number of children covered by that order, while the person required to pay support is confined in a jail, prison, or correctional facility for at least six months or is serving a sentence greater than six months in a jail, prison, or correctional facility. Either the department, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support may rebut the presumption by demonstrating the person required to pay support has possession of, or access to, income or assets available to provide support while incarcerated.
(b) If the incarcerated person's support obligation under the order is abated as provided in (a) of this subsection, the obligation will remain abated to ten dollars per month through the last day of the third month after the person is released from confinement.
(c) After abatement, the support obligation of the person required to pay support under the order is automatically reinstated at fifty percent of the support amount provided in the underlying order, but may not be less than the presumptive minimum obligation of fifty dollars per month per child, effective the first day of the fourth month after the person's release from confinement. Effective one year after release from confinement, the reinstatement at fifty percent of the support amount is automatically terminated, and the support obligation of the person required to pay support under the order is automatically reinstated at one hundred percent of the support amount provided in the underlying order.
(i) Upon a showing of good cause by a party that the circumstances of the case allow it, the court or administrative forum may add specific provisions to the order abating the child support obligation regarding when and how the abatement may terminate.
(ii) During the period of abatement, the department, the person required to pay support, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support may commence an action to modify the child support order under RCW 26.09.170 or 74.20A.059, in which case the provision regarding reinstatement of the support amount at fifty percent does not apply.
(d) If the incarcerated person's support obligation under the order has been abated as provided in (a) of this subsection and then has been reinstated under (c) of this subsection:
(i) Either the department, the person required to pay support, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support may file an action to modify or adjust the order in the appropriate forum, if:
(A) The provisions of (c)(i) and (ii) of this subsection do not apply; and
(B) The person required to pay support has been released from incarceration.
(ii) An action to modify or adjust the order based on the release from incarceration of the person required to pay support may be filed even if there is no other change of circumstances.
(4) The effective date of abatement of a child support obligation based on incarceration to ten dollars per month per order is the date on which the person required to pay support is confined in a jail, prison, or correctional facility for at least six months or begins serving a sentence greater than six months in a jail, prison, or correctional facility, regardless of when the department is notified of the incarceration. However:
(a) The person required to pay support is not entitled to a refund of any support collections or payments that were received by the department prior to the date on which the department is notified of the incarceration; and
(b) The department, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support is not required to refund any support collections or payments that were received by the department prior to the date on which the department is notified of the incarceration.
(5) Abatement of a child support obligation based on incarceration of the person required to pay support does not constitute modification or adjustment of the order.
[ 2020 c 227 s 4.]
Notes:
Reviser's note: For the purposes of this section, "department" appears to refer to the department of social and health services, division of child support.
Effective date—2020 c 227 ss 3-13: "Sections 3 through 13 of this act take effect February 1, 2021." [ 2020 c 227 s 16.]
Findings—Intent—2020 c 227: "(1) The legislature finds that a large number of justice-involved individuals owe significant child support debts when they are released from incarceration.
(2) The legislature finds that these child support debts are often uncollectible and unduly burdensome on a recently released justice-involved individual, and that such debts severely impact the ability of the person required to pay support to have a successful reentry and reintegration into society.
(3) The legislature finds that there is case law in Washington, In re Marriage of Blickenstaff, 71 Wn. App. 489, 859 P.2d 646 (1993), providing that incarceration does not equate to voluntary unemployment or voluntary underemployment.
(4) The legislature finds that there is a statewide movement to assist justice-involved individuals reenter and reintegrate into society, and to reduce state-caused pressures which tend to lead to recidivism and a return to jail or prison.
(5) The legislature finds that, although there is currently a statutory process for modification of child support orders, it is in the best interests of the children of the state of Washington to create a process of abatement instead of making it the sole responsibility of the justice-involved person to take action to deal with his or her child support obligation while incarcerated.
(6) The legislature intends, therefore, to create a remedy whereby court or administrative orders for child support entered in Washington state may be abated when the person required to pay support is incarcerated for at least six months and has no income or assets available to pay support.
(7) The goal of this act is to ensure that the person required to pay support makes the maximum child support monthly payment amount appropriate to comply with an order for child support, notwithstanding other provisions related to abatement herein." [ 2020 c 227 s 3.]

catchline: Child support—Procedures for abatement based on incarceration—Rebuttable presumption of inability to pay—Reinstatement of support obligation.


title: RCW 26.09.325

text:
Either the department, the person required to pay support, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support may make a request for abatement of child support to ten dollars per month under an order for child support when the person required to pay support is currently confined in a jail, prison, or correctional facility for at least six months, or is serving a sentence greater than six months in a jail, prison, or correctional facility.
(1) A request for the abatement of child support owed under one child support order does not automatically qualify as a request for abatement of support owed under every order that may exist requiring that person to pay support. However, the request applies to any support order which is being enforced by the department at the time of the request.
(2) If there are multiple orders requiring the incarcerated person to pay child support, the issue of whether abatement of support due to incarceration is appropriate must be considered for each order.
(a) The payee or person entitled to receive support under each support order is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the potential abatement of support under that order.
(b) If the child or children covered by a support order are not residing with the payee under the order, any other person entitled to receive support for the child or children must be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the potential abatement of support under that order.
[ 2020 c 227 s 5.]
Notes:
Reviser's note: For the purposes of this section, "department" appears to refer to the department of social and health services, division of child support.
Effective date—2020 c 227 ss 3-13: See note following RCW 26.09.320.
Findings—Intent—2020 c 227: See note following RCW 26.09.320.

catchline: Child support—Who may make request for abatement based on incarceration—Procedures when multiple orders requiring incarcerated person to pay support exist.


title: RCW 26.09.330

text:
(1) When a child support order contains language regarding abatement to ten dollars per month per order based on incarceration of the person required to pay support, and that person is currently confined in a jail, prison, or correctional facility for at least six months, or is serving a sentence greater than six months in a jail, prison, or correctional facility, the department must:
(a) Review the support order for abatement once the department receives notice from the person required to pay support or someone acting on his or her behalf that the person may qualify for abatement of support;
(b) Review its records and other available information to determine if the person required to pay support has possession of, or access to, income or assets available to provide support while incarcerated; and
(c) Decide whether abatement of the person's support obligation is appropriate.
(2) If the department decides that abatement of the person's support obligation is appropriate, the department must notify the person required to pay support, and the payee under the order or the person entitled to receive support, that the incarcerated person's support obligation has been abated and that the abatement will continue until the first day of the fourth month after the person is released from confinement. The notification must include the following information:
(a) The payee under the order or the person entitled to receive support may object to the abatement of support due to incarceration;
(i) An objection must be received within twenty days of the notification of abatement;
(ii) Any objection will be forwarded to the office of administrative hearings for an adjudicative proceeding under chapter 34.05 RCW;
(iii) The department, the person required to pay support, and the payee under the order or the person entitled to receive support, all have the right to participate in the administrative hearing as parties; and
(iv) The burden of proof is on the party objecting to the abatement of support to show that the person required to pay support has possession of, or access to, income or assets available to provide support while incarcerated;
(b) The effective date of the abatement of support;
(c) The estimated date of release;
(d) The estimated date that the abatement will end;
(e) That the person required to pay support, the payee under the order, the person entitled to receive support, or the department may file an action to modify the underlying support order once the person required to pay support is released from incarceration, as provided under RCW 26.09.320(3)(d); and
(f) That, if the abated obligation was established by a court order, the department will file a copy of the notification in the court file.
(3) If the department decides that abatement of the incarcerated person's support obligation is not appropriate, the department must notify the person required to pay support and the payee under the order or the person entitled to receive support, that the department does not believe that abatement of the support obligation should occur. The notification must include the following information:
(a) The reasons why the department decided that abatement of the support obligation is not appropriate;
(b) The person required to pay support and the payee under the order or the person entitled to receive support may object to the department's decision not to abate the support obligation;
(i) An objection must be received within twenty days of the notification of abatement;
(ii) Any objection will be forwarded to the office of administrative hearings for an adjudicative proceeding under chapter 34.05 RCW; and
(iii) The department, the incarcerated person, and the payee under the order or the person entitled to receive support all have the right to participate in the administrative hearing as parties;
(c) That, if the administrative law judge enters an order providing that abatement is appropriate, the department will take appropriate steps to document the abatement and will provide notification to the parties as required in subsection (2) of this section.
[ 2020 c 227 s 6.]
Notes:
Reviser's note: For the purposes of this section, "department" appears to refer to the department of social and health services, division of child support.
Effective date—2020 c 227 ss 3-13: See note following RCW 26.09.320.
Findings—Intent—2020 c 227: See note following RCW 26.09.320.

catchline: Child support—Department duties when order contains abatement language and obligated person is incarcerated—Procedures.


title: RCW 26.09.335

text:
(1) When a court or administrative order does not contain language regarding abatement based on incarceration of the person required to pay support and the department receives notice that the person is currently confined in a jail, prison, or correctional facility for at least six months or is serving a sentence greater than six months in a jail, prison, or correctional facility, the department must refer the case to the appropriate forum for a determination of whether the order should be modified to:
(a) Contain abatement language as provided in RCW 26.09.320; and
(b) Abate the person's child support obligation due to current incarceration.
(2) In a proceeding brought under this section, there is a rebuttable presumption that an incarcerated person is unable to pay the child support obligation. The department, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the incarcerated person has possession of, or access to, income or assets available to provide support while incarcerated.
(3) Unless the presumption is rebutted, the court or administrative forum must enter an order providing that the child support obligation under the order is abated to ten dollars per month, without regard to the number of children covered by the order, if the person required to pay support is confined in a jail, prison, or correctional facility for at least six months, or is serving a sentence greater than six months in a jail, prison, or correctional facility.
(4) The order must:
(a) Include the appropriate language required by RCW 26.09.320 in order to provide for a rebuttable presumption of abatement to ten dollars per month per order;
(b) Provide that the order must be reinstated at fifty percent of the previously ordered support amount but not less than the presumptive minimum obligation of fifty dollars per month per child, effective on the first day of the fourth month after the person's release from confinement, and also provide that the order must be automatically reinstated at one hundred percent of the previously ordered support amount effective one year after release from confinement; and
(c) Include language regarding an action to modify or adjust the underlying order as provided under RCW 26.09.320(3).
[ 2020 c 227 s 7.]
Notes:
Reviser's note: For the purposes of this section, "department" appears to refer to the department of social and health services, division of child support.
Effective date—2020 c 227 ss 3-13: See note following RCW 26.09.320.
Findings—Intent—2020 c 227: See note following RCW 26.09.320.

catchline: Child support—Department duties when order does not contain abatement language and obligated person is incarcerated—Procedures.


title: RCW 26.09.340

text:
(1) At any time during the period of incarceration, the department, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support may file a request to reverse or terminate the abatement of support by demonstrating that the incarcerated person has possession of, or access to, income or assets available to provide support while incarcerated.
(a) A request for reversal or termination of the abatement may be filed with the department or with the office of administrative hearings.
(b) The request must include documents or other evidence showing that the incarcerated person has possession of, or access to, income or assets available to provide support while incarcerated.
(c) If the request for a hearing does not include documents or evidence showing that the incarcerated person has possession of, or access to, income or assets, the department may file a motion asking that the request for a hearing be dismissed before a hearing is scheduled or held.
(d) The party seeking to reverse or terminate the abatement may seek to vacate the dismissal order by filing a motion which includes the required proof.
(e) Depending on the type of evidence provided at the hearing, the administrative law judge may order that the abatement of the support obligation be:
(i) Reversed, meaning that the determination that support should be abated is vacated and all amounts owed under the support order are reinstated; or
(ii) Terminated, meaning that the abatement of support ends as of the date specified in the order.
(2) At any time during the period of incarceration, the person required to pay support may file a request to reverse or terminate the abatement of support.
(a) The request for reversal or termination of the abatement may be filed with the department or with the office of administrative hearings.
(b) The person required to pay support is not required to provide any documents or other evidence to support the request.
(3) Abatement of a support obligation does not constitute modification or adjustment of the order.
[ 2020 c 227 s 8.]
Notes:
Reviser's note: For the purposes of this section, "department" appears to refer to the department of social and health services, division of child support.
Effective date—2020 c 227 ss 3-13: See note following RCW 26.09.320.
Findings—Intent—2020 c 227: See note following RCW 26.09.320.

catchline: Child support—Requests for reversal or termination of abatement based on incarceration—Procedures.


title: RCW 26.09.345

text:
(1) When a child support order contains language providing for abatement based on incapacitation of the person required to pay child support, there is a rebuttable presumption that an incapacitated person is unable to pay the child support obligation. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that the person required to pay support has possession of, or access to, income or assets available to provide support while incapacitated. Unless the presumption is rebutted, the provisions of subsection (3) of this section apply.
(2)(a) If the child support order does not contain language providing for abatement based on incapacitation of the person required to pay support, the department, the person required to pay support, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support may commence an action in the appropriate forum to:
(i) Modify or amend the support order to contain abatement language; and
(ii) Abate the person's child support obligation due to current incapacitation for a maximum of six months.
(b) In a proceeding brought under this subsection, there is a rebuttable presumption that an incapacitated person is unable to pay the child support obligation. The department, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support, may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the person required to pay support has possession of, or access to, income or assets available to provide support while incapacitated.
(c) Unless the presumption is rebutted, the provisions of subsection (3) of this section apply.
(3) If the court or administrative forum determines that abatement of support is appropriate:
(a) The child support obligation under the order in front of the court will be abated to $50 per month per child while the person required to pay support is undergoing court-ordered behavioral health treatment.
(b) Abatement of the support obligation to $50 per month per child will remain in place until the earlier of: The last day of the month in which the person is discharged from court-ordered behavioral health treatment; or the last day of the sixth month after the effective date of the abatement.
(c) After abatement of support is terminated, the support obligation of the person required to pay support under the order is automatically reinstated at 100 percent of the support amount provided in the underlying order.
(4) The effective date of abatement of a child support obligation based on incapacitation to $50 per month per child is the date on which the court order for treatment for a behavioral health disorder is entered. However:
(a) The person required to pay support is not entitled to a refund of any support collections or payments that were received by the department prior to the date on which the department is notified of the incapacitation; and
(b) The department, the payee under the order, or the person entitled to receive support is not required to refund any support collections or payments that were received by the department prior to the date on which the department is notified of incapacitation.
(5) Abatement of a child support obligation based on incapacitation of the person required to pay support does not constitute modification or adjustment of the order.
(6) Abatement of a child support obligation based on incapacitation of the person required to pay support shall only be approved one time in a person's lifetime, regardless of whether the abatement lasted the full six months.
[ 2025 c 272 s 5.]
Notes:
Effective date—2025 c 272 ss 4-12: "Sections 4 through 12 of this act take effect April 1, 2027." [ 2025 c 272 s 17.]
Rule-making authority—2025 c 272: "The department of social and health services is granted rule-making authority to adopt rules necessary for the implementation of this act." [ 2025 c 272 s 15.]

catchline: Child support obligations—Abatement based on incapacitation—Rebuttable presumption of inability to pay—Reinstatement timeline. (Effective April 1, 2027.)


title: RCW 26.09.350

text:
(1) When a child support order contains language regarding abatement to $50 per month per child based on incapacitation of the person required to pay support, and the department is notified that the person is currently undergoing court-ordered behavioral health treatment, the department must:
(a) Review the support order for abatement once the department receives notice from the person required to pay support or someone acting on the person's behalf that the person may qualify for abatement of support;
(b) Review its records and other available information to determine if the person required to pay support has possession of, or access to, income or assets available to provide support while incapacitated; and
(c) Decide whether abatement of the person's support obligation is appropriate.
(2) If the department decides that abatement of the person's support obligation is appropriate, the department must notify the person required to pay support, and the payee under the order or the person entitled to receive support, that the person's support obligation has been abated and that the abatement will continue while the person is undergoing court-ordered behavioral health treatment for a maximum of six months. The department, the person required to pay support, and the payee under the order or the person entitled to receive support, have the right to an administrative hearing under chapter 34.05 RCW regarding the determination.
(3) If the department decides that abatement of the person's support obligation is not appropriate, the department must notify the person required to pay support and the payee under the order or the person entitled to receive support, that the department does not believe that abatement of the support obligation should occur. The department, the person required to pay support, and the payee under the order or the person entitled to receive support, have the right to an administrative hearing under chapter 34.05 RCW regarding the determination.
[ 2025 c 272 s 6.]
Notes:
Effective date—2025 c 272 ss 4-12: See note following RCW 26.09.345.
Rule-making authority—2025 c 272: See note following RCW 26.09.345.

catchline: Child support obligations—Department duties when abatement due to obligor's incapacitation—Procedures. (Effective April 1, 2027.)


title: RCW 26.09.355

text:
When a court or administrative order does not contain language regarding abatement based on incapacitation of the person required to pay support and the department receives notice that the person is currently undergoing court-ordered behavioral health treatment, the department must refer the case to the appropriate forum for a determination of whether the order should be modified or amended to:
(1) Contain abatement language as provided in RCW 26.09.345; and
(2) Abate the person's child support obligation due to current incapacitation in accordance with RCW 26.09.345.
[ 2025 c 272 s 7.]
Notes:
Effective date—2025 c 272 ss 4-12: See note following RCW 26.09.345.
Rule-making authority—2025 c 272: See note following RCW 26.09.345.

catchline: Child support obligations—Department duties when no abatement language based on incapacitation and obligor undergoing treatment. (Effective April 1, 2027.)


title: RCW 26.09.405

text:
(1) The provisions of RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 and the chapter 21, Laws of 2000 amendments to RCW 26.09.260, * 26.10.190, and 26.26B.090 apply to a court order regarding residential time or visitation with a child issued:
(a) After June 8, 2000; and
(b) Before June 8, 2000, if the existing court order does not expressly govern relocation of the child.
(2) To the extent that a provision of RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 and the chapter 21, Laws of 2000 amendments to RCW 26.09.260, * 26.10.190, and 26.26B.090 conflicts with the express terms of a court order existing prior to June 8, 2000, then RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 and the chapter 21, Laws of 2000 amendments to RCW 26.09.260, * 26.10.190, and 26.26B.090 do not apply to those terms of that order governing relocation of the child.
(3) The provisions of RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 do not apply to visitation orders entered in dependency proceedings as provided in RCW 13.34.385.
[ 2019 c 46 s 5021; 2008 c 259 s 2; 2000 c 21 s 3.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: Chapter 26.10 RCW, with the exception of RCW 26.10.115, was repealed by 2020 c 312 s 905. RCW 26.10.115 was repealed by 2021 c 215 s 170, effective July 1, 2022.
Intent—2000 c 21: "By this act, the legislature intends to supersede the state supreme court's decisions In Re the Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (1997), and In Re the Marriage of Pape, Docket No. 67527-9, December 23, 1999." [ 2000 c 21 s 1.]
Captions not law—2000 c 21: "Captions used in this act are not any part of the law." [ 2000 c 21 s 22.]

catchline: Applicability.


title: RCW 26.09.410

text:
The definitions in this section apply throughout RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 and 26.09.260 unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Court order" means a temporary or permanent parenting plan, custody order, visitation order, or other order governing the residence of a child under this title.
(2) "Relocate" means a change in principal residence either permanently or for a protracted period of time, or a change in residence in cases where parents have substantially equal residential time as defined by RCW 26.09.525.
[ 2019 c 79 s 4; 2000 c 21 s 2.]
Notes:
Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.

catchline: Definitions.


title: RCW 26.09.420

text:
When entering or modifying a court order, the court has the authority to allow or not allow a person to relocate the child.
[ 2000 c 21 s 4.]
Notes:
Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.

catchline: Grant of authority.


title: RCW 26.09.430

text:
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.
[ 2019 c 79 s 2; 2000 c 21 s 5.]
Notes:
Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.

catchline: Notice requirement.


title: RCW 26.09.440

text:
(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.
[ 2000 c 21 s 6.]
Notes:
Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.

catchline: Notice—Contents and delivery.


title: RCW 26.09.450

text:
(1) When the intended relocation of the child is within the school district in which the child currently resides the majority of the time, the person intending to relocate the child, in lieu of notice prescribed in RCW 26.09.440, may provide actual notice by any reasonable means to every other person entitled to residential time or visitation with the child under a court order.
(2) A person who is entitled to residential time or visitation with the child under a court order may not object to the intended relocation of the child within the school district in which the child currently resides the majority of the time, but he or she retains the right to move for modification under RCW 26.09.260.
[ 2000 c 21 s 7.]
Notes:
Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.

catchline: Notice—Relocation within the same school district.


title: RCW 26.09.460

text:
(1) If a person intending to relocate the child is entering a domestic violence shelter due to the danger imposed by another person, notice may be delayed for twenty-one days. This section shall not be construed to compel the disclosure by any domestic violence shelter of information protected by confidentiality except as provided by RCW 70.123.075 or equivalent laws of the state in which the shelter is located.
(2) If a person intending to relocate the child is a participant in the address confidentiality program pursuant to chapter 40.24 RCW or has a court order which permits the party to withhold some or all of the information required by RCW 26.09.440(2)(b), the confidential or protected information is not required to be given with the notice.
(3) If a person intending to relocate the child is relocating to avoid a clear, immediate, and unreasonable risk to the health or safety of a person or the child, notice may be delayed for twenty-one days.
(4) A person intending to relocate the child who believes that his or her health or safety or the health or safety of the child would be unreasonably put at risk by notice or disclosure of certain information in the notice may request an ex parte hearing with the court to have all or part of the notice requirements waived. If the court finds that the health or safety of a person or a child would be unreasonably put at risk by notice or the disclosure of certain information in the notice, the court may:
(a) Order that the notice requirements be less than complete or waived to the extent necessary to protect confidentiality or the health or safety of a person or child; or
(b) Provide such other relief as the court finds necessary to facilitate the legitimate needs of the parties and the best interests of the child under the circumstances.
(5) This section does not deprive a person entitled to residential time or visitation with a child under a court order the opportunity to object to the intended relocation of the child or the proposed revised residential schedule before the relocation occurs.
[ 2000 c 21 s 8.]
Notes:
Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.

catchline: Limitation of notices.


title: RCW 26.09.470

text:
(1) The failure to provide the required notice is grounds for sanctions, including contempt if applicable.
(2) In determining whether a person has failed to comply with the notice requirements for the purposes of this section, the court may consider whether:
(a) The person has substantially complied with the notice requirements;
(b) The court order in effect at the time of the relocation was issued prior to June 8, 2000, and the person substantially complied with the notice requirements, if any, in the existing order;
(c) A waiver of notice was granted;
(d) A person entitled to receive notice was substantially harmed; and
(e) Any other factor the court deems relevant.
(3) A person entitled to file an objection to the intended relocation of the child may file such objection whether or not the person has received proper notice.
[ 2000 c 21 s 9.]
Notes:
Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.

catchline: Failure to give notice.


title: RCW 26.09.480

text:
(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.
[ 2000 c 21 s 10.]
Notes:
Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.

catchline: Objection to relocation or proposed revised residential schedule.


title: RCW 26.09.490

text:
Unless waived by court order, after June 8, 2000, every court order shall include a clear restatement of the provisions in RCW 26.09.430 through 26.09.480.
[ 2000 c 21 s 11.]
Notes:
Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.

catchline: Required provision in residential orders.