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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.165 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
All court orders containing parenting plan provisions or orders of contempt, entered pursuant to RCW 26.09.160, shall include the following language:
WARNING: VIOLATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER WITH ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF ITS TERMS IS PUNISHABLE BY CONTEMPT OF COURT, AND MAY BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNDER RCW 9A.40.060(2) or 9A.40.070(2). VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER MAY SUBJECT A VIOLATOR TO ARREST.
[ 1994 c 162 s 2; 1989 c 318 s 4.]

Notes:

Severability—1989 c 318: See note following RCW 26.09.160.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1995–2013 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Rideout, 110 Wash. App. 370 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Rideout, 110 Wash. App. 370 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “*382 Sara argues, however, that the July 27 order setting the summer vacation dates was invalid because it failed to include the required warning language of RCW 26.09.165. The statute requires a warning that failure to comply with an order’s residential provisions is punishable…”
Rideout v. Rideout, 40 P.3d 1192 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “Sara argues, however, that the July 27 order setting the summer vacation dates was invalid because it failed to include the required warning language of RCW 26.09.165. The statute requires a warning that failure to comply with an order's residential provisions is punishable by…”
State v. Veliz, 298 P.3d 75 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “318, § 4 (codified at RCW 26.09.165). The legislature’s 1989 amendments provide further support that the legislature intended the term “parenting plan” to have a term-of-art meaning consistent with chapter 26.”
In Re the Marriage of James, 903 P.2d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “5 Neither party raises this issue, but the order is also deficient in that it did not comply with RCW 26.09.165, which reads: All court orders containing parenting plan provisions or orders of contempt, entered pursuant to RCW 26.”
State v. Pesta, 942 P.2d 1013 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “20 See RCW 26.09.165 (requiring such notice in parenting plans).”
State v. Veliz (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “318, § 4 (codified at RCW 26.09.165). The legislature's 1989 amendments provide further support that the legislature intended the term "parenting plan" to have a term-of-art meaning consistent with chapter 26.”
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.