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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The performance of parental functions and the duty to provide child support are distinct responsibilities in the care of a child. If a party fails to comply with a provision of a decree or temporary order of injunction, the obligation of the other party to make payments for support or maintenance or to permit contact with children is not suspended. An attempt by a parent, in either the negotiation or the performance of a parenting plan, to condition one aspect of the parenting plan upon another, to condition payment of child support upon an aspect of the parenting plan, to refuse to pay ordered child support, to refuse to perform the duties provided in the parenting plan, or to hinder the performance by the other parent of duties provided in the parenting plan, shall be deemed bad faith and shall be punished by the court by holding the party in contempt of court and by awarding to the aggrieved party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incidental in bringing a motion for contempt of court.
(2)(a) A motion may be filed to initiate a contempt action to coerce a parent to comply with an order establishing residential provisions for a child. If the court finds there is reasonable cause to believe the parent has not complied with the order, the court may issue an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.
(b) If, based on all the facts and circumstances, the court finds after hearing that the parent, in bad faith, has not complied with the order establishing residential provisions for the child, the court shall find the parent in contempt of court. Upon a finding of contempt, the court shall order:
(i) The noncomplying parent to provide the moving party additional time with the child. The additional time shall be equal to the time missed with the child, due to the parent's noncompliance;
(ii) The parent to pay, to the moving party, all court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred as a result of the noncompliance, and any reasonable expenses incurred in locating or returning a child; and
(iii) The parent to pay, to the moving party, a civil penalty, not less than the sum of one hundred dollars.
The court may also order the parent to be imprisoned in the county jail, if the parent is presently able to comply with the provisions of the court-ordered parenting plan and is presently unwilling to comply. The parent may be imprisoned until he or she agrees to comply with the order, but in no event for more than one hundred eighty days.
(3) On a second failure within three years to comply with a residential provision of a court-ordered parenting plan, a motion may be filed to initiate contempt of court proceedings according to the procedure set forth in subsection (2)(a) and (b) of this section. On a finding of contempt under this subsection, the court shall order:
(a) The noncomplying parent to provide the other parent or party additional time with the child. The additional time shall be twice the amount of the time missed with the child, due to the parent's noncompliance;
(b) The noncomplying parent to pay, to the other parent or party, all court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred as a result of the noncompliance, and any reasonable expenses incurred in locating or returning a child; and
(c) The noncomplying parent to pay, to the moving party, a civil penalty of not less than two hundred fifty dollars.
The court may also order the parent to be imprisoned in the county jail, if the parent is presently able to comply with the provisions of the court-ordered parenting plan and is presently unwilling to comply. The parent may be imprisoned until he or she agrees to comply with the order but in no event for more than one hundred eighty days.
(4) For purposes of subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section, the parent shall be deemed to have the present ability to comply with the order establishing residential provisions unless he or she establishes otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence. The parent shall establish a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the residential provision of a court-ordered parenting plan by a preponderance of the evidence.
(5) Any monetary award ordered under subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section may be enforced, by the party to whom it is awarded, in the same manner as a civil judgment.
(6) Subsections (1), (2), and (3) of this section authorize the exercise of the court's power to impose remedial sanctions for contempt of court and is in addition to any other contempt power the court may possess.
(7) Upon motion for contempt of court under subsections (1) through (3) of this section, if the court finds the motion was brought without reasonable basis, the court shall order the moving party to pay to the nonmoving party, all costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and a civil penalty of not less than one hundred dollars.
[ 1991 c 367 s 4; 1989 c 318 s 1; 1987 c 460 s 12; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 s 16.]

Notes:

Severability—Effective date—Captions not law—1991 c 367: See notes following RCW 26.09.015.
Severability—1989 c 318: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1989 c 318 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Rideout, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Rideout, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 18× “*341 We affirm the Court of Appeals, holding that: (1) notwithstanding the fact that the submissions at the contempt proceeding were entirely documentary, the superior court’s findings of fact should be given deference and evaluated to determine if there was substantial evidence…”
In Re Marriage of Rideout, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 18× “We affirm the Court of Appeals, holding that: (1) notwithstanding the fact that the submissions at the contempt proceeding were entirely documentary, the superior court's findings of fact should be given deference and evaluated to determine if there was substantial evidence to…”
In Re Marriage of Eklund, 177 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 28× “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil *191 penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court's single finding of contempt, but…”
In re the Marriage of Eklund, 143 Wash. App. 207 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 27× “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court’s single finding of contempt, but because the…”
In Re the Marriage of James, 903 P.2d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 11× “"While we sympathize with the trial court’s efforts to enforce the plan despite the parties’ acrimonious charges and counter-charges, we hold that the statute governing contempt orders, RCW 26.09.160, requires the court to first make a specific finding that the parent has acted…”
In re the Marriage of Rideout, 110 Wash. App. 370 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 11× “Sara contended that she did not violate the order in bad faith under RCW 26.09.160 because Caroline had refused to cooperate with the visitation and did not want to spend time with her father.”
Rideout v. Rideout, 40 P.3d 1192 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 11× “Sara contended that she did not violate the order in bad faith under RCW 26.09.160 because Caroline had refused to cooperate with the visitation and did not want to spend time with her father.”
In re the Marriage of Myers, 123 Wash. App. 889 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “The decision to order no attorney fees or penalties was contrary to the language of RCW 26.09.160. Therefore, we reverse and remand back to the trial court to order attorney fees and penalties in accordance with this decision.”
In Re the Marriage of Farr, 940 P.2d 679 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 9× “As such, the sanction was punitive and not authorized by RCW 26.09.160. Similarly, the November 8, 1996 order revoking 15 days of the suspended sentence can be characterized only as punishment for Martin’s refusal to comply with the parenting plan.”
Bay v. Jensen, 196 P.3d 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “¶ 43 Where a party moves for contempt under RCW 26.09.160, a court may award attorney fees to the non-moving party "if the court finds the motion was brought without reasonable basis.”
Bay v. Jensen, 147 Wash. App. 641 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “*660 ¶43 Where a party moves for contempt under RCW 26.09.160, a court may award attorney fees to the non-moving party “if the court finds the motion was brought without reasonable basis.”
Brester v. Bollenbacher, 106 Wash. App. 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “160(3), when a court finds a parent in contempt for a second time, the court must order the contemnor to pay reasonable attorney fees and all court costs: [T]he court shall order: (b) The noncomplying parent to pay, to the other parent or party, all court costs and reasonable…”
Show all 90 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(1) — 38 cases
In re the Marriage of Rideout, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003). “*341 We affirm the Court of Appeals, holding that: (1) notwithstanding the fact that the submissions at the contempt proceeding were entirely documentary, the superior court’s findings of fact should be given deference and evaluated to determine if there was substantial evidence…”
In Re Marriage of Rideout, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003). “We affirm the Court of Appeals, holding that: (1) notwithstanding the fact that the submissions at the contempt proceeding were entirely documentary, the superior court's findings of fact should be given deference and evaluated to determine if there was substantial evidence to…”
In re the Marriage of Eklund, 143 Wash. App. 207 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court’s single finding of contempt, but because the…”
In Re Marriage of Eklund, 177 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil *191 penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court's single finding of contempt, but…”
State ex rel. D.R.M. v. Wood, 109 Wash. App. 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(2) — 10 cases
In re the Marriage of Eklund, 143 Wash. App. 207 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court’s single finding of contempt, but because the…”
In Re Marriage of Eklund, 177 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil *191 penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court's single finding of contempt, but…”
In Re The Parenting & Support Of: A.p. David Parsons, Res. v. Tanya Goodman, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
In re the Marriage of Kristen M. Hess & Scott D. Hess (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Amy S Devargas, V Joshua D Kleymeyer (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(2)(a) — 7 cases
In Re the Marriage of Farr, 940 P.2d 679 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “As such, the sanction was punitive and not authorized by RCW 26.09.160. Similarly, the November 8, 1996 order revoking 15 days of the suspended sentence can be characterized only as punishment for Martin’s refusal to comply with the parenting plan.”
In Re The Parenting & Support Of: A.p. David Parsons, Res. v. Tanya Goodman, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Michael Erickson v. Meela Pribic (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Jennifer Lesinski, V. Joseph Mienko (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
Drew Ferguson, V. Nakia Brady (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(2)(a)(ii) — 1 case
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Eugene Allen Cramer & Jennifer Nicole Cramer (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(2)(b) — 46 cases
In Re Marriage of Eklund, 177 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil *191 penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court's single finding of contempt, but…”
In re the Marriage of Eklund, 143 Wash. App. 207 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court’s single finding of contempt, but because the…”
In re the Marriage of Rideout, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003). “*341 We affirm the Court of Appeals, holding that: (1) notwithstanding the fact that the submissions at the contempt proceeding were entirely documentary, the superior court’s findings of fact should be given deference and evaluated to determine if there was substantial evidence…”
In Re Marriage of Rideout, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003). “We affirm the Court of Appeals, holding that: (1) notwithstanding the fact that the submissions at the contempt proceeding were entirely documentary, the superior court's findings of fact should be given deference and evaluated to determine if there was substantial evidence to…”
In re the Marriage of Myers, 123 Wash. App. 889 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The decision to order no attorney fees or penalties was contrary to the language of RCW 26.09.160. Therefore, we reverse and remand back to the trial court to order attorney fees and penalties in accordance with this decision.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(2)(b)(i) — 10 cases
In re the Marriage of Eklund, 143 Wash. App. 207 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court’s single finding of contempt, but because the…”
In Re Marriage of Eklund, 177 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil *191 penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court's single finding of contempt, but…”
In re the Marriage of Myers, 123 Wash. App. 889 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The decision to order no attorney fees or penalties was contrary to the language of RCW 26.09.160. Therefore, we reverse and remand back to the trial court to order attorney fees and penalties in accordance with this decision.”
In Re the Marriage of Farr, 940 P.2d 679 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “As such, the sanction was punitive and not authorized by RCW 26.09.160. Similarly, the November 8, 1996 order revoking 15 days of the suspended sentence can be characterized only as punishment for Martin’s refusal to comply with the parenting plan.”
In re the Marriage of Rideout, 110 Wash. App. 370 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Sara contended that she did not violate the order in bad faith under RCW 26.09.160 because Caroline had refused to cooperate with the visitation and did not want to spend time with her father.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(2)(b)(ii) — 22 cases
In re the Marriage of Eklund, 143 Wash. App. 207 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court’s single finding of contempt, but because the…”
In Re Marriage of Eklund, 177 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil *191 penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court's single finding of contempt, but…”
In re the Marriage of Rideout, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003). “*341 We affirm the Court of Appeals, holding that: (1) notwithstanding the fact that the submissions at the contempt proceeding were entirely documentary, the superior court’s findings of fact should be given deference and evaluated to determine if there was substantial evidence…”
In Re Marriage of Rideout, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003). “We affirm the Court of Appeals, holding that: (1) notwithstanding the fact that the submissions at the contempt proceeding were entirely documentary, the superior court's findings of fact should be given deference and evaluated to determine if there was substantial evidence to…”
In re the Marriage of Rideout, 110 Wash. App. 370 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Sara contended that she did not violate the order in bad faith under RCW 26.09.160 because Caroline had refused to cooperate with the visitation and did not want to spend time with her father.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(2)(b)(iii) — 5 cases
In re the Marriage of Eklund, 143 Wash. App. 207 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court’s single finding of contempt, but because the…”
In Re Marriage of Eklund, 177 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil *191 penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court's single finding of contempt, but…”
In re the Marriage of: Sareena Malhi & Andy K.R. Prasad (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
In the Matter of the Custody of: G.A.K.K. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Eugene Allen Cramer & Jennifer Nicole Cramer (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(3) — 5 cases
In re the Marriage of Eklund, 143 Wash. App. 207 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court’s single finding of contempt, but because the…”
In Re Marriage of Eklund, 177 P.3d 189 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Despite finding that Michael was in contempt and had acted in bad faith, the trial court declined to order (1) makeup time, (2) attorney fees and costs, or (3) the civil *191 penalty required under RCW 26.09.160. We affirm the trial court's single finding of contempt, but…”
Brester v. Bollenbacher, 106 Wash. App. 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “160(3), when a court finds a parent in contempt for a second time, the court must order the contemnor to pay reasonable attorney fees and all court costs: [T]he court shall order: (b) The noncomplying parent to pay, to the other parent or party, all court costs and reasonable…”
In Re Parentage of Schroeder, 22 P.3d 1280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Sareena Malhi & Andy K.R. Prasad (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(3)(b) — 3 cases
Brester v. Bollenbacher, 106 Wash. App. 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “160(3), when a court finds a parent in contempt for a second time, the court must order the contemnor to pay reasonable attorney fees and all court costs: [T]he court shall order: (b) The noncomplying parent to pay, to the other parent or party, all court costs and reasonable…”
In Re Parentage of Schroeder, 22 P.3d 1280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Kimberly R. Coltrain & Eric J. Coltrain (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(3)(c) — 1 case
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Thomas Charles Harding Roe & Laura Jean Pettitt (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(4) — 19 cases
In re the Marriage of Rideout, 110 Wash. App. 370 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Sara contended that she did not violate the order in bad faith under RCW 26.09.160 because Caroline had refused to cooperate with the visitation and did not want to spend time with her father.”
In re the Marriage of Rideout, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003). “*341 We affirm the Court of Appeals, holding that: (1) notwithstanding the fact that the submissions at the contempt proceeding were entirely documentary, the superior court’s findings of fact should be given deference and evaluated to determine if there was substantial evidence…”
Rideout v. Rideout, 40 P.3d 1192 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Sara contended that she did not violate the order in bad faith under RCW 26.09.160 because Caroline had refused to cooperate with the visitation and did not want to spend time with her father.”
In Re Marriage of Rideout, 77 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2003). “We affirm the Court of Appeals, holding that: (1) notwithstanding the fact that the submissions at the contempt proceeding were entirely documentary, the superior court's findings of fact should be given deference and evaluated to determine if there was substantial evidence to…”
In Re the Marriage of James, 903 P.2d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “"While we sympathize with the trial court’s efforts to enforce the plan despite the parties’ acrimonious charges and counter-charges, we hold that the statute governing contempt orders, RCW 26.09.160, requires the court to first make a specific finding that the parent has acted…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(5) — 1 case
Dennis G. Ott, P.S. v. Est. of Whitmire, 140 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(6) — 3 cases
Darrel Riley v. Suzette Riley (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Brandee Mayton v. Peter Coneway (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Kimberly R. Coltrain & Eric J. Coltrain (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(7) — 10 cases
Bay v. Jensen, 196 P.3d 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 43 Where a party moves for contempt under RCW 26.09.160, a court may award attorney fees to the non-moving party "if the court finds the motion was brought without reasonable basis.”
Bay v. Jensen, 147 Wash. App. 641 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “*660 ¶43 Where a party moves for contempt under RCW 26.09.160, a court may award attorney fees to the non-moving party “if the court finds the motion was brought without reasonable basis.”
In Re the Marriage of Humphreys, 903 P.2d 1012 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
In Re The Custody Of: Brooklyn Helland Heather Helland, Res. & David Isaacson, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Meela Pribic v. Michael Erickson (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160(b)(ii) — 1 case
In Re The Parentage Of Rob Jacobs, V. Gale E. Mcarthur (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.