Washington

Statutory framework; factor structure: 7.

Authority

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(a)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

7

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

none — closed

Presumptions in the original survey

The original seven-factor entry identifies no general presumption; §§ 26.09.191 and .192 limitations can be dispositive. Section .192 separately provides specified rebuttable safety presumptions and mandatory restraints concerning sexual abuse or sex offenses against children.

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

Marriage "is irretrievably broken"

Authority

RCW 26.09.030

Grounds without a misconduct showing

Marriage "is irretrievably broken"

Other grounds and proof conditions

None (0)

Separation

No general separation period identified for the ordinary breakdown route. See the ground and timing conditions.

Timing

Ninety days must have elapsed since filing the petition and from service of summons on the respondent or first publication of summons. If breakdown is denied, § 26.09.030 permits referral or a continuance; thereafter, the court enters a dissolution decree if it finds the parties have not reconciled and either continues to allege irretrievable breakdown.

Relief without dissolution

Legal separation in lieu of dissolution under RCW 26.09.030(d), unless the other party objects and petitions for dissolution or a declaration of invalidity.

Compare divorce grounds nationally

Statutory relocation factors and a qualifying-move presumption; no presumption where each parent has at least 45 percent of residential time. Hauk, 7 Wn.3d 1 (2026), measures residential time at service of the relocation notice; the slip and revised texts are compared in Sources and limits.

Authority

RCW 26.09.405 to .560

Court test

statutory relocation factors

Burden classification

presumption for the move

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

any move (no distance threshold)

Effect of silence

yes

What the court weighs

Relocating person states reasons. Rebuttable presumption that the relocation will be permitted. An objecting person rebuts it by showing the detrimental effect of the relocation outweighs the benefit of the change to the child and the relocating person, based on eleven unweighted factors (relationship strength, prior agreements, relative detriment of disrupting contact, RCW 26.09.191 limitations, reasons and good faith, child's age, development and needs, quality of life and opportunities in each location, alternative arrangements, alternatives to relocation and feasibility of the other party moving, financial impact and logistics, for temporary orders, time before trial). Where each parent has at least 45 percent of the child's residential time (counting only time spent with parents and using the amount designated in the court order unless there is an ongoing pattern of substantial deviation, both parents agreed to it, and the deviation is not based on circumstances beyond either parent’s ability to control), the presumption does not apply and the court decides on best interest using the same factors. RCW 26.09.520,.525,.530

In In re Marriage of Hauk, 7 Wn.3d 1, 594 P.3d 679 (2026), reconsideration denied Sept. 16, 2026, the court held that residential time is calculated when notice of the proposed move is served, so in a phased plan only the phase then in place counts, not future phases not yet in effect. The court reversed and remanded for findings on the service date and the 45 percent threshold. Four justices dissented and would have counted the entire plan.

Who carries the burden

Objecting person bears the burden to rebut the presumption (relocating person must give reasons). No presumption, and a best-interest determination on the same factors, when the relocating person has substantially equal time. RCW 26.09.520,.525

Notice and safety exceptions

Yes. A person with whom the child resides a majority of the time, or who has substantially equal residential time, must notify every other person entitled to residential time or visitation. Notice by personal service or any mail requiring a return receipt, at least 60 days before the intended relocation (or within 5 days after learning the information if it could not reasonably have been known in time). Notice must include an address for service, reasons, and a warning that an objection must be filed and served within 30 days, plus specified details and a proposed residential schedule if available. Moves within the same school district need only actual notice by any reasonable means. RCW 26.09.430,.440,.450

Which moves trigger the rule

'Relocate' means a change in principal residence either permanently or for a protracted period, or a change in residence where parents have substantially equal residential time (45 percent or more each). No mileage threshold. Within-school-district moves get lighter notice and cannot be objected to (the other parent may still seek modification). RCW 26.09.410,.450,.525

Objections and the effect of silence

Objection must be filed and served within 30 days of receipt of the notice. The relocating person may not change the child's principal residence during the objection period without a court order (ex parte order available) and, if a hearing is noted within 15 days of service of the objection, pending the hearing. If no objection is filed in 30 days the relocation 'shall be permitted' except for good cause, and the proposed schedule may be entered ex parte. Silence authorizes the move. RCW 26.09.480,.500

The modification threshold

No. A petition to modify a parenting plan in a relocation proceeding may be filed 'without a showing of adequate cause other than the proposed relocation itself.' RCW 26.09.260(6)

Other qualifications

The statute does not apply the relocation presumption when each parent has at least 45 percent of residential time. In In re Marriage of Hauk, 7 Wn.3d 1 (2026), a 5–4 court held that residential time is calculated as of service of the relocation notice, so for a phased plan the phase then in place controls rather than future phases not yet in effect. Reconsideration was denied September 16, 2026.

Important qualification

The presumption does not apply where each parent has at least 45% of residential time. Hauk, 7 Wn.3d 1 (2026), calculates residential time at service of notice; the court did not address calculations based on deviations from the court-ordered schedule under RCW 26.09.525(2).

Burden summary

Presumption for a qualifying move; substantially equal residential time is an exception.

Notice summary

60 days; exceptions apply

Trigger summary

Any move

Compare parental relocation nationally