Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.09
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.002 (2026)

Policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Parents have the responsibility to make decisions and perform other parental functions necessary for the care and growth of their minor children. In any proceeding between parents under this chapter, the best interests of the child shall be the standard by which the court determines and allocates the parties' parental responsibilities. The state recognizes the fundamental importance of the parent-child relationship to the welfare of the child, and that the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests. Residential time and financial support are equally important components of parenting arrangements. The best interests of the child are served by a parenting arrangement that best maintains a child's emotional growth, health and stability, and physical care. Further, the best interest of the child is 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.
[ 2007 c 496 s 101; 1987 c 460 s 2.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—2007 c 496: "Part headings used in this act are not any part of the law." [ 2007 c 496 s 801.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 160 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Chandola, 180 Wash. 2d 632 (Wash. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Chandola, 180 Wash. 2d 632 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 3× “It provides that “the best interest of the child is 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,…”
In Re the Marriage of Kovacs, 854 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 4× “) RCW 26.09.002. *803 That policy section, however, must be read in conjunction with the following placement provisions: (1) OBJECTIVES.”
In re the Marriage of Katare, 105 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “187(3) and the best interests of the children under RCW 26.09.002, and they are not justified under RCW 26-.”
In Re Parentage of Schroeder, 22 P.3d 1280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “ANALYSIS Modification of Parenting Plan Douglas contends the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to modify the parenting plan and award custody of Ashley to Douglas.”
Matter of Marriage of Kovacs, 840 P.2d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 18× “) Also, RCW 26.09.002 provides: [T]he best interest of the child is 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…”
King v. King, 174 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “" RCW 26.09.002. What this policy promotes is the continued parental involvement in the children's lives to the greatest extent possible, given the dissolution of the marriage.”
In Re Parentage of LB, 122 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.09.002. To effectuate this policy, the law presumes that parents not granted custody [21] are entitled to reasonable visitation rights.”
State v. Fairfax, 179 Wash. 2d 411 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 4× “RCW 26.09.002; see RCW 26.09.184(1) (detailing the specific objectives of a parenting plan).”
Carvin v. Britain, 155 Wash. 2d 679 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.09.002. To effectuate this policy, the law presumes that parents not granted custody 21 are entitled to reasonable visitation rights.”
In re the Marriage of King, 162 Wash. 2d 378 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “” RCW 26.09.002. What this policy promotes is the continued parental involvement in the children’s lives to the greatest extent possible, given the dissolution of the marriage.”
In Re: Gretchen Ruff (fka Gretchen Worthley) v. William Worthley, 393 P.3d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.09.002. ¶20 And 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…”
In Re Marriage of Possinger, 19 P.3d 1109 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “002, the Legislature states the policy underlying the Act: In any proceeding between parents under this chapter, the best interests of the child shall be the standard by which the court determines and allocates the parties' parental responsibilities. The state recognizes the…”
Show all 160 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.002(5) — 1 case
Christine Crabtree, V. Donald Crabtree (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.