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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.410 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The definitions in this section apply throughout RCW 26.09.405 through 26.09.560 and 26.09.260 unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Court order" means a temporary or permanent parenting plan, custody order, visitation order, or other order governing the residence of a child under this title.
(2) "Relocate" means a change in principal residence either permanently or for a protracted period of time, or a change in residence in cases where parents have substantially equal residential time as defined by RCW 26.09.525.
[ 2019 c 79 s 4; 2000 c 21 s 2.]

Notes:

Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Fahey, 262 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of Fahey, 262 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “at 30 (quoting RCW 26.09.410 and .430). Lawrence argues that because, as a matter of fact, Nichole and Shannon resided with him a majority of the time since 2006, that Lisa cannot invoke the relocation statutes and is not entitled to the rebuttable presumption favoring her…”
In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “*55 of Appellant at 30 (quoting RCW 26.09.410, .430). Lawrence argues that because, as a matter of fact, Nichole and Shannon resided with him a majority of the time since 2006, Lisa cannot invoke the relocation statutes and is not entitled to the rebuttable presumption favoring…”
In Re: Gretchen Ruff (fka Gretchen Worthley) v. William Worthley, 393 P.3d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” RCW 26.09.410, .430, .520. To conclude otherwise would be to impermissibly render this language superfluous, void, or insignificant.”
Ethan Joseph Bergerson v. Maria Teresa Zurbano, 432 P.3d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Consistent with In re MarriaQe of Snider16 and Worthley,17 the court did not err by dismissing the father’s petition.”
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 540 P.3d 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “The court reasoned that the DVPO order fell within the definition of “court order” under RCW 26.09.410, and the DVPO contained a schedule that was the “most 7 83082-1-I/8 recent order.”
In Re the Marriage of Wehr, 267 P.3d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “” RCW 26.09.410(2). A person “with whom [a] child resides a majority of the time” must provide notice of an intended relocation to every person entitled to residential time with the child.”
State v. Cline, 323 P.3d 614 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “191(3)(f) (domestic relations statute allowing court to impose restrictions in parenting plan if “[a] parent has withheld from the other parent access to the child for a protracted period without good cause”); RCW 26.09.410(2) (domestic relations statute defining “relocate” as…”
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 534 P.3d 853 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “The court reasoned that the DVPO order fell within the definition of “court order” under RCW 26.09.410, and the DVPO contained a schedule that was the “most 7 83082-1-I/8 recent order.”
Arynn Hauk, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Brandon Wuesthoff, Respondent/Cross-Appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “” RCW 26.09.410(1). Here, the trial court explained that it calculated each parent’s residential time based on “a computation of overnights based on the totality of the plan.”
Erin D. Farrell-milosavljevic v. Zmajko Milosavljevic (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 26.09.410(1). When establishing a temporary parenting plan, the trial court considers the best Interests of the child factors to determine residential provisions.”
Janice Rios-negron v. Pedro Gadiel Figueroa Varagas (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 26.09.410, .430, and .520 have been amended by Laws of 2019, ch.”
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Vanessa M. Weaver & Richard J. Weaver (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “” RCW 26.09.410(2). A person “with whom [a] child resides a majority of the time” must provide notice of an intended relocation to every person entitled to residential time with the child.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.410(1) — 4 cases
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 540 P.3d 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The court reasoned that the DVPO order fell within the definition of “court order” under RCW 26.09.410, and the DVPO contained a schedule that was the “most 7 83082-1-I/8 recent order.”
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 534 P.3d 853 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The court reasoned that the DVPO order fell within the definition of “court order” under RCW 26.09.410, and the DVPO contained a schedule that was the “most 7 83082-1-I/8 recent order.”
Arynn Hauk, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Brandon Wuesthoff, Respondent/Cross-Appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” RCW 26.09.410(1). Here, the trial court explained that it calculated each parent’s residential time based on “a computation of overnights based on the totality of the plan.”
Erin D. Farrell-milosavljevic v. Zmajko Milosavljevic (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 26.09.410(1). When establishing a temporary parenting plan, the trial court considers the best Interests of the child factors to determine residential provisions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.410(2) — 9 cases
In Re Marriage of Fahey, 262 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “at 30 (quoting RCW 26.09.410 and .430). Lawrence argues that because, as a matter of fact, Nichole and Shannon resided with him a majority of the time since 2006, that Lisa cannot invoke the relocation statutes and is not entitled to the rebuttable presumption favoring her…”
In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “*55 of Appellant at 30 (quoting RCW 26.09.410, .430). Lawrence argues that because, as a matter of fact, Nichole and Shannon resided with him a majority of the time since 2006, Lisa cannot invoke the relocation statutes and is not entitled to the rebuttable presumption favoring…”
Ethan Joseph Bergerson v. Maria Teresa Zurbano, 432 P.3d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Consistent with In re MarriaQe of Snider16 and Worthley,17 the court did not err by dismissing the father’s petition.”
In Re: Gretchen Ruff (fka Gretchen Worthley) v. William Worthley, 393 P.3d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “” RCW 26.09.410, .430, .520. To conclude otherwise would be to impermissibly render this language superfluous, void, or insignificant.”
In Re the Marriage of Wehr, 267 P.3d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “” RCW 26.09.410(2). A person “with whom [a] child resides a majority of the time” must provide notice of an intended relocation to every person entitled to residential time with the child.”
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.