Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187 (2026)

Criteria for establishing 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) DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS. The court shall not order a dispute resolution process, except court action, when it finds that any limiting factor under RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 applies, or when it finds that either parent is unable to afford the cost of the proposed dispute resolution process. If a dispute resolution process is not precluded or limited, then in designating such a process the court shall consider all relevant factors, including:

(a) Differences between the parents that would substantially inhibit their effective participation in any designated process;

(b) The parents' wishes or agreements and, if the parents have entered into agreements, whether the agreements were made knowingly and voluntarily; and

(c) Differences in the parents' financial circumstances that may affect their ability to participate fully in a given dispute resolution process.

(2) ALLOCATION OF DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY.

(a) AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. The court shall approve agreements of the parties allocating decision-making authority, or specifying rules in the areas listed in RCW 26.09.184(5)(a), when it finds that:

(i) The agreement is consistent with any limitations on a parent's decision-making authority mandated by RCW 26.09.191 and 26.09.192; and

(ii) The agreement is knowing and voluntary.

(b) SOLE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. The court shall order sole decision-making to one parent when it finds that:

(i) A limitation on the other parent's decision-making authority is mandated by RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192;

(ii) Both parents are opposed to mutual decision making;

(iii) One parent is opposed to mutual decision making, and such opposition is reasonable based on the criteria in (c) of this subsection.

(c) MUTUAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. Except as provided in (a) and (b) of this subsection, the court shall consider the following criteria in allocating decision-making authority:

(i) The existence of a limitation under RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192;

(ii) The history of participation of each parent in decision making in each of the areas in RCW 26.09.184(5)(a);

(iii) Whether the parents have a demonstrated ability and desire to cooperate with one another in decision making in each of the areas in RCW 26.09.184(5)(a); and

(iv) The parents' geographic proximity to one another, to the extent that it affects their ability to make timely mutual decisions.

(3) RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS.

(a) The court shall make residential provisions for each child which encourage each parent to maintain a loving, stable, and nurturing relationship with the child, consistent with the child's developmental level and the family's social and economic circumstances. The child's residential schedule shall be consistent with RCW 26.09.191 and 26.09.192. Where the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 are not dispositive of the child's residential schedule, the court shall consider the following factors:

(i) The relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent;

(ii) The agreements of the parties, provided they were entered into knowingly and voluntarily;

(iii) Each parent's past and potential for future performance of parenting functions as defined in *RCW 26.09.004(2), including whether a parent has taken greater responsibility for performing parenting functions relating to the daily needs of the child;

(iv) The emotional needs and developmental level of the child;

(v) The child's relationship with siblings and with other significant adults, as well as the child's involvement with his or her physical surroundings, school, or other significant activities;

(vi) The wishes of the parents and the wishes of a child who is sufficiently mature to express reasoned and independent preferences as to his or her residential schedule; and

(vii) Each parent's employment schedule, and shall make accommodations consistent with those schedules.

Factor (i) shall be given the greatest weight.

(b) Where the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 are not dispositive, the court may order that a child frequently alternate his or her residence between the households of the parents for brief and substantially equal intervals of time if such provision is in the best interests of the child. In determining whether such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child, the court may consider the parties geographic proximity to the extent necessary to ensure the ability to share performance of the parenting functions.

(c) For any child, residential provisions may contain any reasonable terms or conditions that facilitate the orderly and meaningful exercise of residential time by a parent, including but not limited to requirements of reasonable notice when residential time will not occur.

[ 2025 c 166 s 4; 2007 c 496 s 603; 1989 c 375 s 10; 1987 c 460 s 9.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 26.09.004 was amended by 2025 c 272 s 4, changing subsection (2) to subsection (4).

Part headings not law—2007 c 496: See note following RCW 26.09.002.

Custody, designation of for purposes of other statutes: RCW 26.09.285.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 218 cases (64 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: In Re the Marriage of Kovacs, 854 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re the Marriage of Kovacs, 854 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 12× “: (a) Provide for the child's physical care; (b) Maintain the child's emotional stability; (c) Provide for the child's changing needs as the child grows and matures, in a way that minimizes the need for future modifications to the permanent parenting plan; (d) Set forth the…”

In re the Marriage of Chandola, 180 Wash. 2d 632 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 5× “191(3)(g) Must Be Reasonably Calculated To Prevent Physical, Mental, or Emotional Harm to the Child ¶22 There is some overlap between the trial court’s authority under RCW 26.09.187, to establish the terms of the parenting plan, and its authority under RCW 26.”

In Re The Parenting & Support Of C.t., 193 Wash. App. 427 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “II. Entering Final Parenting Plan without Seeking Out More Evidence at Trial ¶39 Thomas argues that the trial court failed to follow the statutory requirements of RCW 26.”

In Re Marriage of Possinger, 19 P.3d 1109 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “g Act to adopt a permanent parenting plan that contains a residential schedule that will remain in effect for a specified period of time pending significant changes that are expected to occur in the lives of the parents, and then, at the end of that period of time, revisit the…”

State v. Fairfax, 179 Wash. 2d 411 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 6× “Obviously, a court has to apply the factors found in RCW 26.09.187, which are intended to protect a child’s best interests and to designate a parent the primary caregiver and, therefore, the custodian.”

In re the Marriage of Possinger, 105 Wash. App. 326 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “to adopt a permanent parenting plan that contains a residential schedule that will remain in effect for *328 a specified period of time pending significant changes that are expected to occur in the lives of the parents, and then, at the end of that period of time, revisit the…”

Ethan Joseph Bergerson v. Maria Teresa Zurbano, 432 P.3d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “520 provide the same protections to children as the modification statute or the provisions of RCW26.09.187, which govern residential schedules in the first instance.”

In re the Marriage of Adler, 131 Wash. App. 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “260; instead, the trial court applied the criteria in RCW 26.09.187. Possinger, 105 Wn. App. at 331 .”

Magnuson v. Magnuson, 170 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “ANALYSIS ¶ 6 The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by impermissibly considering Robbie's transgender status in granting residential placement of the parties' two minor children to Tracy.”

In re the Marriage of Magnuson, 141 Wash. App. 347 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “ANALYSIS ¶6 The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by impermissibly considering Robbie’s transgender status in granting residential placement of the parties’ two minor children to Tracy.”

In re the Marriage of Katare, 105 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “, RCW 26.09.187(1) (limiting dispute resolution procedures where any .”

In re the Marriage of Kim, 317 P.3d 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “*243 ¶22 Because Combs involved a dissolution trial conducted prior to the effective date of the relocation act, it applied the parenting plan criteria under RCW 26.09.187 rather than the more specific relocation factors later enacted under RCW 26.”

Show all 218 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(1) — 5 cases

In re the Marriage of Katare, 105 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “, RCW 26.09.187(1) (limiting dispute resolution procedures where any .”

In Re The Marriage Of: Lindsay Coetzee, V. Antony Coetzee (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

In Re The Marriage Of: Andrew J. Hellman v. Miranda R. Hellman (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

Parenting & Support Of Z.c., Cory Clarke V. Taylor Dike Kna Savage (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

Katare v. Katare, 105 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(1)(a) — 1 case

Keith Charles Drake, V. Maggie May Drake (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(2) — 12 cases

In re the Marriage of Coy, 160 Wash. App. 797 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

In re the Marriage of Katare, 105 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “, RCW 26.09.187(1) (limiting dispute resolution procedures where any .”

In Re Marriage of Coy, 248 P.3d 1101 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

In Re The Parenting & Support Of E.l.c., James Childs v. Olivia Walton (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

Abay Kennedy, V. Meron Gebre (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(2)(b) — 12 cases

In Re the Marriage of Jensen-Branch, 899 P.2d 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).

Sarah Marie Vanderlinden v. Nicolas Gonzalez Vanderlinden (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Abay Kennedy, V. Meron Gebre (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

In Re The Parenting & Support Of E.l.c., James Childs v. Olivia Walton (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

Michelle Conley, Resp/x-app v. Christopher Rugh, App/x-resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(2)(b)(i) — 5 cases

In re the Marriage of Mansour, 126 Wash. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

Mansour v. Mansour, 106 P.3d 768 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

Aleksandra Milutinovic v. Christopher Olin Moritz (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

In Re Marriage Of: Eric R. Shibley, App. v. Tina M. Shibley, Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

Hannah Kathryn Thiess, V. Blake James Thiess (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(2)(b)(ii) — 4 cases

In Re The Parenting & Support Of Aubrey Vaneta Johnson (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

In Re The Marriage Of: Donna M. Cochener, Resp/cross App V. Christian T. Metcalfe, App/cross Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

Mohammad Mahmud, V. Nataliya Makarenko (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

In re the Marriage of: Norman D. Leslie & Janelle L. Leslie (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(2)(b)(iii) — 7 cases

In Re Marriage Of: Eric R. Shibley, App. v. Tina M. Shibley, Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

In Re The Parenting & Support Of E.l.c., James Childs v. Olivia Walton (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

Christy M. Mckinley v. Benjamin S. Porter (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Grzegorz Gogolowicz, Appellant\\cross-respondent v. Magdalena Gogolowicz, Respondent\\cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Janene Gordon, App./Cross-Resp. v. Scott K. Serven, Resp./Cross-App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(2)(c) — 9 cases

In Re the Marriage of Jensen-Branch, 899 P.2d 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).

In Re The Parenting & Support Of E.l.c., James Childs v. Olivia Walton (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

Janene Gordon, App./Cross-Resp. v. Scott K. Serven, Resp./Cross-App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Janene Gordon, App./cross-resp. V. Scott K. Serven, Resp./cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Janene Gordon, App./cross-resp. V. Scott K. Serven, Resp./cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(2)(c)(i) — 1 case

In Re The Parenting & Support Of E.l.c., James Childs v. Olivia Walton (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(2)(c)(ii) — 3 cases

In Re the Marriage of Jensen-Branch, 899 P.2d 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).

In Re The Parenting & Support Of E.l.c., James Childs v. Olivia Walton (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

Mohammad Mahmud, V. Nataliya Makarenko (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(2)(c)(iii) — 1 case

Christy M. Mckinley v. Benjamin S. Porter (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(2)(c)(iv) — 1 case

Mohammad Mahmud, V. Nataliya Makarenko (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3) — 88 cases

Hazen v. Robinson, 49 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

In Re the Marriage of Kovacs, 854 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1993). “: (a) Provide for the child's physical care; (b) Maintain the child's emotional stability; (c) Provide for the child's changing needs as the child grows and matures, in a way that minimizes the need for future modifications to the permanent parenting plan; (d) Set forth the…”

In re the Marriage of Katare, 283 P.3d 546 (Wash. 2012).

In Re The Parenting & Support Of C.t., 193 Wash. App. 427 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “II. Entering Final Parenting Plan without Seeking Out More Evidence at Trial ¶39 Thomas argues that the trial court failed to follow the statutory requirements of RCW 26.”

Smith v. Stillwell-Smith, 969 P.2d 21 (Wash. 1998).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(A)(iv) — 1 case

Kalvin Michael Kronmeyer v. Meredith Faye Guesman (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(A)(v) — 1 case

Kalvin Michael Kronmeyer v. Meredith Faye Guesman (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(a) — 102 cases

Ethan Joseph Bergerson v. Maria Teresa Zurbano, 432 P.3d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “520 provide the same protections to children as the modification statute or the provisions of RCW26.09.187, which govern residential schedules in the first instance.”

Magnuson v. Magnuson, 170 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “ANALYSIS ¶ 6 The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by impermissibly considering Robbie's transgender status in granting residential placement of the parties' two minor children to Tracy.”

In re the Marriage of Magnuson, 141 Wash. App. 347 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “ANALYSIS ¶6 The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by impermissibly considering Robbie’s transgender status in granting residential placement of the parties’ two minor children to Tracy.”

In Re Parentage of LB, 122 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(a)(i) — 29 cases

Matter of Marriage of Kovacs, 840 P.2d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(a)(ii) — 5 cases

In re the Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wash. 2d 39 (Wash. 1997).

In Re The Parenting & Support Of Aubrey Vaneta Johnson (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

In the Matter of the Parenting & Support of: J.L.G. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

Anne Kari Brewitt v. Islam Gamal El Din Michael Abdel Ghani (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

In the Matter of the Parentage of: A.W. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(a)(iii) — 18 cases

Matter of Marriage of Kovacs, 840 P.2d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).

In Re the Marriage of Jacobson, 954 P.2d 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

In Re The Marriage Of: Sarah J. Brown & Will J. Brown (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

In Re The Marriage Of: John Wilkins, & Andrea Wilkins (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(a)(iii)(iv) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(a)(iv) — 9 cases

In Re The Parenting & Support Of Aubrey Vaneta Johnson (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

In Re The Parenting & Support Of A.p., David Parsons v. Tanya Goodman (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

In Re The Marriage Of: Jennifer Corinne Anderson, Res. & Loren Heath Anderson, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

Stephen Condie, App-cross v. Amy Condie, Resp-cross (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

In the Matter of the Parentage of: A.W. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(a)(v) — 11 cases

In re the Marriage of Rostrom, 339 P.3d 185 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

In the Matter of the Parentage of: Russell Allen Lewis Pablo & Jacqueline Leilani Chow Hoy (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

In Re The Parenting & Support Of Aubrey Vaneta Johnson (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Mitchell Edward White v. Lindsay Marie Spuck (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

Grzegorz Gogolowicz, Appellant\\cross-respondent v. Magdalena Gogolowicz, Respondent\\cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(a)(vi) — 11 cases

In Re Marriage of Bobbitt, 144 P.3d 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

In re the Marriage of Bobbitt, 135 Wash. App. 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Janene Gordon, App./Cross-Resp. v. Scott K. Serven, Resp./Cross-App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Janene Gordon, App./cross-resp. V. Scott K. Serven, Resp./cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Janene Gordon, App./cross-resp. V. Scott K. Serven, Resp./cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(a)(vii) — 10 cases

In Re Marriage: Caroline Caylor, Aka Caroline Vaughan, App. v. Nathaniel Caylor, Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

In Re The Parenting & Support Of Aubrey Vaneta Johnson (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

In the Matter of the Parentage of: A.W. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).

In the Matter of the Parenting & Support of: J.L.G. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

Janene Gordon, App./Cross-Resp. v. Scott K. Serven, Resp./Cross-App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(b) — 18 cases

In re the Marriage of Rossmiller, 112 Wash. App. 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

Elliott v. Settje, 27 P.3d 317 (Alaska 2001).

In Re The Marriage Of: Eve H. Snider Anderson, App. & Judah Stroud, Res., 430 P.3d 726 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

In re the Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wash. 2d 39 (Wash. 1997).

In Re Marriage of Littlefield, 940 P.2d 1362 (Wash. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(b)(ii) — 3 cases

Rossmiller v. Rossmiller, 48 P.3d 377 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

In re the Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wash. 2d 39 (Wash. 1997).

In Re Marriage of Littlefield, 940 P.2d 1362 (Wash. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(b)(ii)(A) — 2 cases

In re the Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wash. 2d 39 (Wash. 1997).

In Re Marriage of Littlefield, 940 P.2d 1362 (Wash. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(b)(ii)(B) — 7 cases

In re the Marriage of Rossmiller, 112 Wash. App. 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

Rossmiller v. Rossmiller, 48 P.3d 377 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

In Re the Marriage of Jacobson, 954 P.2d 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

In re the Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wash. 2d 39 (Wash. 1997).

In Re Marriage of Littlefield, 940 P.2d 1362 (Wash. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(c) — 2 cases

Justine Becker, V. Matthew Cole (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Mohammad Mahmud, V. Nataliya Makarenko (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(i) — 2 cases

In the Matter of the Parentage of: Russell Allen Lewis Pablo & Jacqueline Leilani Chow Hoy (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

Parentage Of H.n.c.: Melissa Curry, V. Michael Coffman (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(ii) — 1 case

Daniel R. Audette v. Elaina D. Audette (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(5) — 1 case

Sarah Marie Vanderlinden v. Nicolas Gonzalez Vanderlinden (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(a) — 3 cases

Janene Gordon, App./Cross-Resp. v. Scott K. Serven, Resp./Cross-App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Janene Gordon, App./cross-resp. V. Scott K. Serven, Resp./cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Janene Gordon, App./cross-resp. V. Scott K. Serven, Resp./cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(a)(i) — 1 case

In Re The Parenting & Support Of A.p., David Parsons v. Tanya Goodman (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(b) — 1 case

Sarah Marie Vanderlinden v. Nicolas Gonzalez Vanderlinden (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(b)(ii)(B) — 1 case

In Re the Marriage of Jacobson, 954 P.2d 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(i) — 3 cases

Janene Gordon, App./Cross-Resp. v. Scott K. Serven, Resp./Cross-App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Janene Gordon, App./cross-resp. V. Scott K. Serven, Resp./cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Janene Gordon, App./cross-resp. V. Scott K. Serven, Resp./cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

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.