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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.280 (2026)

Parenting plan or child support modification or enforcement—Venue

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every action or proceeding to change, modify, or enforce any final order, judgment, or decree entered in any dissolution or legal separation or declaration concerning the validity of a marriage or domestic partnership, whether under this chapter or prior law, regarding the parenting plan or child support for the minor children of the marriage or the domestic partnership may be brought in the county where the minor children are then residing, or in the court in which the final order, judgment, or decree was entered, or in the county where the parent or other person who has the care, custody, or control of the children is then residing.
[ 2008 c 6 s 1020; 1991 c 367 s 10; 1987 c 460 s 20; 1975 c 32 s 4; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 s 28.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Severability—Effective date—Captions not law—1991 c 367: See notes following RCW 26.09.015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: McDaniels v. Carlson, 738 P.2d 254 (Wash. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McDaniels v. Carlson, 738 P.2d 254 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 2× “We are concerned that the best interests of the child standard, too broadly interpreted, could become a blanket license for any person to disrupt long-fostered family relationships by claiming to be the parent of a child.”
Hauge v. Corvin, 599 P.2d 23 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “She successfully moved for a change of venue from Pierce County to Chelan County based upon RCW 26.09.280: Hereafter every action or proceeding to change, modify, or enforce any final order, judgment, or decree heretofore or hereafter entered in any dissolution or legal…”
In re the Marriage of Catherine Allen & Jeffrey Allen (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “In support of his motion to change venue, Jeffrey declared: In conclusion my wishes to have a change of venue fits within the parameters [of] RCW 26.09.280. It makes no sense to find solutions to our conflict 250 miles away where we don't live and not where the children…”
Faye Escobedo, V. Joshua Achterhof (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Achterhof asserted below that the court should change venue to Pierce County “[b]ecause the parties and the children currently reside in the Pierce County area,” invoking the “convenience of witnesses” prong of RCW 4.12.030. But it is undisputed that Escobedo and the children…”
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.