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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181 (2026)

Procedure for determining permanent parenting plan

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED PLANS. (a) In any proceeding under this chapter, except a modification, each party shall file and serve a proposed permanent parenting plan on or before the earliest date of:
(i) Thirty days after filing and service by either party of a notice for trial; or
(ii) One hundred eighty days after commencement of the action which one hundred eighty day period may be extended by stipulation of the parties.
(b) In proceedings for a modification of custody or a parenting plan, a proposed parenting plan shall be filed and served with the motion for modification and with the response to the motion for modification.
(c) No proposed permanent parenting plan shall be required after filing of an agreed permanent parenting plan, after entry of a final decree, or after dismissal of the cause of action.
(d) A party who files a proposed parenting plan in compliance with this section may move the court for an order of default adopting that party's parenting plan if the other party has failed to file a proposed parenting plan as required in this section.
(2) AMENDING PROPOSED PARENTING PLANS. Either party may file and serve an amended proposed permanent parenting plan according to the rules for amending pleadings.
(3) GOOD FAITH PROPOSAL. The parent submitting a proposed parenting plan shall attach a verified statement that the plan is proposed by that parent in good faith.
(4) AGREED PERMANENT PARENTING PLANS. The parents may make an agreed permanent parenting plan.
(5) MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Where mandatory settlement conferences are provided under court rule, the parents shall attend a mandatory settlement conference. The mandatory settlement conference shall be presided over by a judge or a court commissioner, who shall apply the criteria in RCW 26.09.187 and 26.09.191. The parents shall in good faith review the proposed terms of the parenting plans and any other issues relevant to the cause of action with the presiding judge or court commissioner. Facts and legal issues that are not then in dispute shall be entered as stipulations for purposes of final hearing or trial in the matter.
(6) TRIAL SETTING. Trial dates for actions involving minor children brought under this chapter shall receive priority.
(7) ENTRY OF FINAL ORDER. The final order or decree shall be entered not sooner than ninety days after filing and service.
This subsection does not apply to decrees of legal separation.
[ 1989 2nd ex.s. c 2 s 1; 1989 c 375 s 8; 1987 c 460 s 7.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1993–2020 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Wilson, 68 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of Wilson, 68 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 46× “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
In re the Marriage of Wilson, 117 Wash. App. 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 45× “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
Mecum v. Pomiak, 81 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 17× “Shortly before trial they filed a proposed parenting plan and a motion asking the trial court to find the father, Steven Pomiak, in default because he failed to comply with the requirements of RCW 26.09.181 and file a proposed parenting plan.”
In re the Marriage of Buecking, 316 P.3d 999 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 3× “030 is inapplicable to parenting plans under RCW 26.09.181, the latter statute does not provide an analogy for purposes of deciding whether the 90-day period in the former statute runs from a petition for dissolution or for legal separation.”
Mecum v. Pomiak, 81 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 17× “Shortly before trial they filed a proposed parenting plan and a motion asking the trial court to find the father, Steven Pomiak, in default because he failed to comply with the requirements of RCW 26.09.181 and file a proposed parenting plan.”
In Re the Marriage of Kovacs, 854 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1993). “5 RCW 26.09.181, .184(2). Any provision of the parenting plan will or may be limited if the trial court finds any one of a number of factors set forth in RCW 26.”
Matter of Marriage of Shryock, 888 P.2d 750 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Shryock was required by RCW 26.09.181(1)(b) to submit a proposed permanent parenting plan with her response to the petition for modification.”
In re the Custody of Halls, 126 Wash. App. 599 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “modification and shall give notice, together with a copy of his affidavit, to other parties to the proceedings, who may file opposing affidavits.”
State v. Gossage, 138 Wash. App. 298 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “130(3) (1984) (dependency review hearing at least every six months); RCW 26.09.181 (permanent parenting plan proposals must be submitted within 30 days of notice for trial or 180 days after action filed).”
In Re Custody of Halls, 109 P.3d 15 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “modification and shall give notice, together with a copy of his affidavit, to other parties to the proceedings, who may file opposing affidavits.”
Minium v. Shmilenko, 374 P.3d 1169 (Wash. 2016). “1, RCW 26.09.181, .260, and .270, and RCW 26.”
State v. Gossage, 156 P.3d 951 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “[7] A renewed petition for termination of registration obligations is a mere potentiality, dependent entirely on the offender filing anew, whereas in Petersen, Chubb, and Greenlaw, future proceedings were certain. RCW 71.09.090 (annual review of sexually violent predator…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(1) — 4 cases
In Re Marriage of Wilson, 68 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
Mecum v. Pomiak, 81 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Shortly before trial they filed a proposed parenting plan and a motion asking the trial court to find the father, Steven Pomiak, in default because he failed to comply with the requirements of RCW 26.09.181 and file a proposed parenting plan.”
In re the Marriage of Wilson, 117 Wash. App. 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
Mecum v. Pomiak, 81 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Shortly before trial they filed a proposed parenting plan and a motion asking the trial court to find the father, Steven Pomiak, in default because he failed to comply with the requirements of RCW 26.09.181 and file a proposed parenting plan.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(1)(a) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Wilson, 68 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(1)(b) — 3 cases
In Re Marriage of Wilson, 68 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
Matter of Marriage of Shryock, 888 P.2d 750 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Shryock was required by RCW 26.09.181(1)(b) to submit a proposed permanent parenting plan with her response to the petition for modification.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Denise M. Barry, & William C. Parsons (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(1)(c) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Wilson, 68 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(1)(d) — 5 cases
In Re Marriage of Wilson, 68 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
Mecum v. Pomiak, 81 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Shortly before trial they filed a proposed parenting plan and a motion asking the trial court to find the father, Steven Pomiak, in default because he failed to comply with the requirements of RCW 26.09.181 and file a proposed parenting plan.”
Matter of Marriage of Shryock, 888 P.2d 750 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Shryock was required by RCW 26.09.181(1)(b) to submit a proposed permanent parenting plan with her response to the petition for modification.”
Bryan Michael Aneweer v. Amber Mae Smithlin (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
In Re The Marriage Of: Jennifer Lynn Root, Res. & Salvador Aguilar Hurtado, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(2) — 1 case
In the Matter of the Parentage of: G.N.M.-B. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(4) — 2 cases
In Re Marriage of Wilson, 68 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
In re the Marriage of Wilson, 117 Wash. App. 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(5) — 1 case
Katherine Naravane v. Michael Vinther (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(7) — 4 cases
In Re Marriage of Wilson, 68 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
In re the Marriage of Wilson, 117 Wash. App. 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
In re the Marriage of Buecking, 316 P.3d 999 (Wash. 2013). “030 is inapplicable to parenting plans under RCW 26.09.181, the latter statute does not provide an analogy for purposes of deciding whether the 90-day period in the former statute runs from a petition for dissolution or for legal separation.”
In Re Marriage of Buecking (Wash. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(d) — 1 case
Bryan Michael Aneweer v. Amber Mae Smithlin (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(l)(a) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Wilson, 117 Wash. App. 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(l)(b) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Wilson, 117 Wash. App. 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(l)(c) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Wilson, 117 Wash. App. 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.181(l)(d) — 2 cases
In re the Marriage of Wilson, 117 Wash. App. 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “After interpreting RCW 26.09.181 for the first time in this unique context, we affirm.”
Mecum v. Pomiak, 81 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Shortly before trial they filed a proposed parenting plan and a motion asking the trial court to find the father, Steven Pomiak, in default because he failed to comply with the requirements of RCW 26.09.181 and file a proposed parenting plan.”
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.