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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.430 (2026)

Notice requirement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided in RCW 26.09.460, a person with whom the child resides a majority of the time, or a person with substantially equal residential time, shall notify every other person entitled to residential time or visitation with the child under a court order if the person intends to relocate. Notice shall be given as prescribed in RCW 26.09.440 and 26.09.450.
[ 2019 c 79 s 2; 2000 c 21 s 5.]

Notes:

Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 9× “RCW 26.09.430. 6 The trial court ruled that the best *52 interests for both children were to have Lisa as their primary parent and approved the relocation to Omak.”
In Re Marriage of Fahey, 262 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “RCW 26.09.430. [6] The trial court ruled that the best interests for both children were to have Lisa as their primary parent and approved the relocation to Omak.”
In Re: Gretchen Ruff (fka Gretchen Worthley) v. William Worthley, 393 P.3d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “RCW 26.09.430 (emphasis added). Finally, there is “a rebuttable presumption that the intended relocation of the child will be permitted.”
Ramirez v. Holland, 122 Wash. App. 324 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “RCW 26.09.430 requires a person “with whom [a] child resides a majority of the time” to provide notice to interested persons if he or she intends to relocate.”
In Re Parentage of RFR, 93 P.3d 951 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “RCW 26.09.430 requires a person "with whom [a] child resides a majority of the time" to provide notice if he or she intends to relocate.”
Ethan Joseph Bergerson v. Maria Teresa Zurbano, 432 P.3d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Consistent with In re MarriaQe of Snider16 and Worthley,17 the court did not err by dismissing the father’s petition.”
In re the Marriage of Horner, 93 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 26.09.430. Unless good cause is shown, the relocation is permitted if a person entitled to object does not file an objection within 30 days of his receipt of the notice of the relocation.”
Bay v. Jensen, 147 Wash. App. 641 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The parenting plan also summarized the notice that RCW 26.09.430 to .480 required Jensen to give if she intended to relocate the children again, including (1) notice of an intended relocation of the children to every person entitled to court-ordered time with the children; (2)…”
Bay v. Jensen, 196 P.3d 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The parenting plan also summarized the notice that RCW 26.09.430 to .480 required Jensen to give if she intended to relocate the children again, including (1) notice of an intended relocation of the children to every person entitled to court-ordered time with the children; (2)…”
In Re Marriage of Horner, 93 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 26.09.430. Unless good cause is shown, the relocation is permitted if a person entitled to object does not file an objection *127 within 30 days of his receipt of the notice of the relocation.”
Osborne v. Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 26.09.430. A nonrelocating parent or another party having court-ordered visitation with the child may file an objection to the relocation of the child.”
David William Jackson v. Rhonda Lyn Clark, 421 P.3d 477 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “” RCW 26.09.430. 1. Legal principles The CRA is codified at RCW 26.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.430(3) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Chua & Root, 202 P.3d 367 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.430(4) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Chua & Root, 202 P.3d 367 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
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.