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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.405 (2026)

Applicability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The provisions of RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 and the chapter 21, Laws of 2000 amendments to RCW 26.09.260, * 26.10.190, and 26.26B.090 apply to a court order regarding residential time or visitation with a child issued:
(a) After June 8, 2000; and
(b) Before June 8, 2000, if the existing court order does not expressly govern relocation of the child.
(2) To the extent that a provision of RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 and the chapter 21, Laws of 2000 amendments to RCW 26.09.260, * 26.10.190, and 26.26B.090 conflicts with the express terms of a court order existing prior to June 8, 2000, then RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 and the chapter 21, Laws of 2000 amendments to RCW 26.09.260, * 26.10.190, and 26.26B.090 do not apply to those terms of that order governing relocation of the child.
(3) The provisions of RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 do not apply to visitation orders entered in dependency proceedings as provided in RCW 13.34.385.
[ 2019 c 46 s 5021; 2008 c 259 s 2; 2000 c 21 s 3.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: Chapter 26.10 RCW, with the exception of RCW 26.10.115, was repealed by 2020 c 312 s 905. RCW 26.10.115 was repealed by 2021 c 215 s 170, effective July 1, 2022.
Intent—2000 c 21: "By this act, the legislature intends to supersede the state supreme court's decisions In Re the Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (1997), and In Re the Marriage of Pape, Docket No. 67527-9, December 23, 1999." [ 2000 c 21 s 1.]
Captions not law—2000 c 21: "Captions used in this act are not any part of the law." [ 2000 c 21 s 22.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Grigsby, 57 P.3d 1166 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Grigsby, 57 P.3d 1166 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “” Under the procedures and standards provided in RCW 26.09.405 through RCW 26.09.560, there is a rebut-table presumption that relocation will be permitted that may be rebutted by a showing that the detrimental effect of *4 the relocation will outweigh any potential benefit.”
In Re Marriage of Grigsby, 57 P.3d 1166 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “" Under the procedures and standards provided in RCW 26.09.405 through RCW 26.09.560, there is a rebuttable presumption that relocation will be permitted that may be rebutted by a showing that the detrimental effect of the relocation will outweigh any potential benefit.”
Osborne v. Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× ““The provisions of RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 . .. apply to a court order regarding residential time or visitation with a child .”
In Re Custody of Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “]" [8] We recommend that counsel in future child relocation appeals utilize the procedures for requesting accelerated review that are provided by RAP 17.”
In Re: Gretchen Ruff (fka Gretchen Worthley) v. William Worthley, 393 P.3d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “1 RCW 26.09.405-,560. 2 We granted Gretchen Ruff’s motion for discretionary review under RAP 2.”
Bay v. Jensen, 196 P.3d 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “[9] RCW 26.09.405 to .909. [10] Bay submitted his own declaration, and declarations by his father, by his mother, and by Richard Torrez (Jensen's ex-fiancé).”
In re the Marriage of Horner, 58 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 26.09.405(l)(a). RCW 26.09.420. RCW 26.”
Robinson v. Robinson, 211 S.W.3d 63 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006). “§ 30-3-37 (2006)), Washington (Wash. Rev.Code §§ 26.09.405, et seq. (2006)), West Virginia (W.”
David William Jackson v. Rhonda Lyn Clark, 421 P.3d 477 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “But by its terms, the CRA applies only to relocation requests made by a person “with whom the child resides a majority of the time.”
Marriage of Horner, 58 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “[15] Clerk's Papers (CP) at 47. [16] CP at 52. [17] CP at 62. [18] CP at 59.”
In re the Marriage of Combs, 105 Wash. App. 168 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “In making a determination of a modification pursuant to relocation of the child, the court shall first determine whether to permit or restrain the relocation of the child using the procedures and standards provided in RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560. Following that…”
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 540 P.3d 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “In making a determination of a modification pursuant to relocation of the child, the court shall first determine whether to permit or restrain the relocation of the child using the procedures and standards provided in RCW 26.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.405(1) — 2 cases
Osborne v. Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). ““The provisions of RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 . .. apply to a court order regarding residential time or visitation with a child .”
In Re Custody of Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “]" [8] We recommend that counsel in future child relocation appeals utilize the procedures for requesting accelerated review that are provided by RAP 17.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.405(1)(a) — 1 case
Marriage of Horner, 58 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “[15] Clerk's Papers (CP) at 47. [16] CP at 52. [17] CP at 62. [18] CP at 59.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.405(l)(a) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Horner, 58 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 26.09.405(l)(a). RCW 26.09.420. RCW 26.”
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.