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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.175 (2026)

Modification of order of child support

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A proceeding for the modification of an order of child support shall commence with the filing of a petition and worksheets. The petition shall be in the form prescribed by the administrator for the courts. There shall be a fee of twenty dollars for the filing of a petition for modification of dissolution.
(2)(a) The petitioner shall serve upon the other party the summons, a copy of the petition, and the worksheets in the form prescribed by the administrator for the courts. If the modification proceeding is the first action filed in this state, service shall be made by personal service. If the decree to be modified was entered in this state, service shall be by personal service or by any form of mail requiring a return receipt. Proof of service shall be filed with the court.
(b) If the support obligation has been assigned to the state pursuant to RCW 74.20.330 or the state has a subrogated interest under RCW 74.20A.030, the summons, petition, and worksheets shall also be served on the attorney general; except that notice shall be given to the office of the prosecuting attorney for the county in which the action is filed in lieu of the office of the attorney general in those counties and in the types of cases as designated by the office of the attorney general by letter sent to the presiding superior court judge of that county.
(3) As provided for under RCW 26.09.170, the department of social and health services may file an action to modify or adjust an order of child support if:
(a) Public assistance money is being paid to or for the benefit of the child;
(b) A party to the order in a nonassistance case has requested a review; or
(c) Another state or jurisdiction has requested a modification of the order.
(4) A responding party's answer and worksheets shall be served and the answer filed within twenty days after service of the petition or sixty days if served out of state. A responding party's failure to file an answer within the time required shall result in entry of a default judgment for the petitioner.
(5) At any time after responsive pleadings are filed, any party may schedule the matter for hearing.
(6) Unless all parties stipulate to arbitration or the presiding judge authorizes oral testimony pursuant to subsection (7) of this section, a petition for modification of an order of child support shall be heard by the court on affidavits, the petition, answer, and worksheets only.
(7) A party seeking authority to present oral testimony on the petition to modify a support order shall file an appropriate motion not later than ten days after the time of notice of hearing. Affidavits and exhibits setting forth the reasons oral testimony is necessary to a just adjudication of the issues shall accompany the petition. The affidavits and exhibits must demonstrate the extraordinary features of the case. Factors which may be considered include, but are not limited to: (a) Substantial questions of credibility on a major issue; (b) insufficient or inconsistent discovery materials not correctable by further discovery; or (c) particularly complex circumstances requiring expert testimony.
(8) If testimony other than affidavit is required in any proceeding under this section, a court of this state shall permit a party or witness to be deposed or to testify under penalty of perjury by telephone, audiovisual means, or other electronic means, unless good cause is shown.
[ 2010 c 279 s 2; 2002 c 199 s 2; 1992 c 229 s 3; 1991 c 367 s 6; 1990 1st ex.s. c 2 s 3; 1987 c 430 s 2.]

Notes:

Severability—Effective date—Captions not law—1991 c 367: See notes following RCW 26.09.015.
Effective dates—Severability—1990 1st ex.s. c 2: See notes following RCW 26.09.100.
Severability—1987 c 430: See note following RCW 26.09.170.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: In Re Marriage of McLean, 937 P.2d 602 (Wash. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of McLean, 937 P.2d 602 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 17× “175(2) and due process are satisfied when pleadings in a proceeding to modify an award of child support under a dissolution decree entered by a Washington court are served upon the nonpetitioning parent by certified mail, return receipt requested, but the mailing is returned…”
In re the Marriage of McLean, 132 Wash. 2d 301 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 17× “At issue in this case is whether RCW 26.09.175(2) and due process are satisfied when pleadings in a proceeding to modify an award of child support under a dissolution decree entered by a Washington court are served upon the nonpetitioning parent by certified mail, return receipt…”
In re the Marriage of Sagner, 159 Wash. App. 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 11× “1 Because the court had con *745 tinuing jurisdiction to modify the child support order in this case, and Karl complied with the requirements of former RCW 26.09.175 (2002), 2 the specific statute that governs the filing and service of a petition to modify child support, we…”
In re the Marriage of Morris, 309 P.3d 767 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “Unless otherwise requested, the petition is heard on affidavits, the petition, the answer, and the financial worksheets only.”
In re the Marriage of Herridge, 279 P.3d 956 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “Moreover, the trial court determined that Cecil was not prejudiced by its previous decision to modify the child support order based only upon declarations — because Cecil had failed to timely request that oral testimony be heard, the petition for modification “was properly heard…”
In Re the Marriage of Blickenstaff & Blickenstaff, 859 P.2d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “170(8)(a) provided that parties who intend to seek a modification under this section of the statute "may initiate the modification pursuant to procedures of RCW 26.09.175." The procedures outlined in RCW 26.”
Sagner v. Sagner, 247 P.3d 444 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “[1] Because the court had continuing jurisdiction to modify the child support order in this case, and Karl complied with the requirements of RCW 26.09.175, the specific statute that governs the filing and service of a petition to modify child support, we affirm.”
Jannot v. Jannot, 65 P.3d 664 (Wash. 2003). “2d 664 (1965) (child support modification)); see also RCW 26.09.175(5); Bower v. Reich, 89 Wn. App.”
In Re Parentage of Jannot, 65 P.3d 664 (Wash. 2003). “2d 664 (1965) (child support modification)); see also RCW 26.09.175(5); Bower v. Reich, 89 Wash.”
In re the Marriage of Sprute, 344 P.3d 730 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “) He argues that under this statute, a party does not exercise a right to request post-secondary educational support until both a petition to modify and child support worksheets are filed. Therefore, the issue is whether “exercising the right” to request postsecondary…”
In Re the Marriage of Pollard, 991 P.2d 1201 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Brookins did not initially file all the required documents pursuant to RCW 26.09.175(1). According to the statute, the modification proceedings “shall commence with the filing of a petition and worksheets.”
In re the Marriage of Scanlon, 109 Wash. App. 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 26.09.175. RCW 26.09.170. RCW 26.09.170(1).”
Show all 35 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.175(1) — 10 cases
In Re the Marriage of Pollard, 991 P.2d 1201 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Brookins did not initially file all the required documents pursuant to RCW 26.09.175(1). According to the statute, the modification proceedings “shall commence with the filing of a petition and worksheets.”
In re the Marriage of Morris, 309 P.3d 767 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Unless otherwise requested, the petition is heard on affidavits, the petition, the answer, and the financial worksheets only.”
In re the Marriage of Sprute, 344 P.3d 730 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “) He argues that under this statute, a party does not exercise a right to request post-secondary educational support until both a petition to modify and child support worksheets are filed. Therefore, the issue is whether “exercising the right” to request postsecondary…”
In Re the Marriage of Blickenstaff & Blickenstaff, 859 P.2d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “170(8)(a) provided that parties who intend to seek a modification under this section of the statute "may initiate the modification pursuant to procedures of RCW 26.09.175." The procedures outlined in RCW 26.”
In Re the Marriage of Brockopp, 898 P.2d 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.175(2) — 11 cases
In Re Marriage of McLean, 937 P.2d 602 (Wash. 1997). “175(2) and due process are satisfied when pleadings in a proceeding to modify an award of child support under a dissolution decree entered by a Washington court are served upon the nonpetitioning parent by certified mail, return receipt requested, but the mailing is returned…”
In re the Marriage of McLean, 132 Wash. 2d 301 (Wash. 1997). “At issue in this case is whether RCW 26.09.175(2) and due process are satisfied when pleadings in a proceeding to modify an award of child support under a dissolution decree entered by a Washington court are served upon the nonpetitioning parent by certified mail, return receipt…”
In re the Marriage of Sagner, 159 Wash. App. 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “1 Because the court had con *745 tinuing jurisdiction to modify the child support order in this case, and Karl complied with the requirements of former RCW 26.09.175 (2002), 2 the specific statute that governs the filing and service of a petition to modify child support, we…”
In re the Marriage of Mu Chai, 93 P.3d 936 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sagner v. Sagner, 247 P.3d 444 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “[1] Because the court had continuing jurisdiction to modify the child support order in this case, and Karl complied with the requirements of RCW 26.09.175, the specific statute that governs the filing and service of a petition to modify child support, we affirm.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.175(2)(a) — 1 case
In Re The Parentage Of A.d. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.175(3) — 3 cases
In Re Marriage of McLean, 937 P.2d 602 (Wash. 1997). “175(2) and due process are satisfied when pleadings in a proceeding to modify an award of child support under a dissolution decree entered by a Washington court are served upon the nonpetitioning parent by certified mail, return receipt requested, but the mailing is returned…”
In re the Marriage of McLean, 132 Wash. 2d 301 (Wash. 1997). “At issue in this case is whether RCW 26.09.175(2) and due process are satisfied when pleadings in a proceeding to modify an award of child support under a dissolution decree entered by a Washington court are served upon the nonpetitioning parent by certified mail, return receipt…”
Jennifer J. Zacapu, V Andres Zacapu-Oliver, 368 P.3d 242 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.175(3)(b) — 1 case
Jennifer J. Zacapu, V Andres Zacapu-Oliver, 368 P.3d 242 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.175(4) — 2 cases
Heidi Rachael Silver v. Matthew Benjamin Silver (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Tammy Triplett v. Stephanie Case (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.175(5) — 6 cases
In re the Marriage of Herridge, 279 P.3d 956 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Moreover, the trial court determined that Cecil was not prejudiced by its previous decision to modify the child support order based only upon declarations — because Cecil had failed to timely request that oral testimony be heard, the petition for modification “was properly heard…”
Jannot v. Jannot, 65 P.3d 664 (Wash. 2003). “2d 664 (1965) (child support modification)); see also RCW 26.09.175(5); Bower v. Reich, 89 Wn. App.”
In Re Parentage of Jannot, 65 P.3d 664 (Wash. 2003). “2d 664 (1965) (child support modification)); see also RCW 26.09.175(5); Bower v. Reich, 89 Wash.”
In re the Marriage of Morris, 309 P.3d 767 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Unless otherwise requested, the petition is heard on affidavits, the petition, the answer, and the financial worksheets only.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Kenneth B. Kaplan, Res/cross-app. & Sheila Kohls, App/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.175(6) — 5 cases
In re the Marriage of Morris, 309 P.3d 767 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Unless otherwise requested, the petition is heard on affidavits, the petition, the answer, and the financial worksheets only.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Gregory Charles Morris v. Kelly Reyes (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
In Re The Marriage Of: Kenneth B. Kaplan, Res/cross-app. & Sheila Kohls, App/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
In re the Marriage of Geoff Merritt & Heidi Merritt (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
In Re The Marriage Of: Donette L. Venn F/k/a Zbikowski, Resp/x-app v. Mark J. Zbikowski, App/x-resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
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.