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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.285 (2026)

Designation of custody for the purpose of other state and federal statutes

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Solely for the purposes of all other state and federal statutes which require a designation or determination of custody, a parenting plan shall designate the parent with whom the child is scheduled to reside a majority of the time as the custodian of the child. However, this designation shall not affect either parent's rights and responsibilities under the parenting plan. In the absence of such a designation, the parent with whom the child is scheduled to reside the majority of the time shall be deemed to be the custodian of the child for the purposes of such federal and state statutes.
[ 1989 c 375 s 16; 1987 c 460 s 21.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2021 · leading case: State v. Fairfax, 179 Wash. 2d 411 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fairfax, 179 Wash. 2d 411 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 9× “119 “Custody decree” is somewhat defined in RCW 26.09.285. RCW 26.09.285 deems the parent with whom the child is scheduled to reside a majority of the time the “custodian.”
In re the Marriage of Kimpel, 94 P.3d 1022 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Kimpel as the custodial parent for purposes of RCW 26.09.285, Mr. Kimpel pointed out that mathematically he received slightly more time with the children than did Ms.”
In Re Marriage of Fahey, 262 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “See RCW 26.09.285. [12] And the parties agreed that the primary custodial parent designation "shall not affect either parent's rights and responsibilities under the parenting plan.”
In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “285; Ex. 1, at 3.12. These “rights and responsibilities” specifically included sharing residential time as equally as possible.”
In Re the Marriage of Crosetto, 918 P.2d 954 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “184(5); RCW 26.09.285. 2 In re Marriage of Fleege, 91 Wn.”
In re the Marriage of Schnurman, 316 P.3d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “See RCW 26.09.285. The designation is not challenged on appeal.”
Matter of Marriage of Greenlaw, 869 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1994). “See RCW 26.09.285. 2 Findings of fact were not entered and the reason for changing custody pending trial is not clear.”
State v. Kirwin, 271 P.3d 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 26.09.285 provides that “a parenting plan shall designate the parent with whom the child is scheduled to reside a majority of the time as the custodian of the child.”
Blume v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 106 Wash. App. 714 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Under this system, neither parent has “custody” of a child to the exclusion of the other, but rather a parenting plan allocates when and how parenting responsibilities are divided between parents. The required designation of “custody” in parenting plans is only for the purposes…”
David William Jackson v. Rhonda Lyn Clark, 421 P.3d 477 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 26.09.285. 2 No. 35027-4-III In re Marriage of Jackson & Clark he crossed out that portion of the proposed plan that listed Ms.”
In Re Dependency of JWH, 24 P.3d 1105 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Under this system, neither parent has "custody" of a child to the exclusion of the other, but rather a parenting plan allocates when and how parenting responsibilities are divided between parents. The required designation of "custody" in parenting plans is only for the purposes…”
Mark A. Cantrell, V. Casie Jo Ray (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “” Similarly, RCW 26.09.285 uses the term “custodian.” For consistency with the record and RCW 26.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.