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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.440 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in RCW 26.09.450 and 26.09.460, the notice of an intended relocation of the child must be given by:
(a) Personal service or any form of mail requiring a return receipt; and
(b) No less than:
(i) Sixty days before the date of the intended relocation of the child; or
(ii) No more than five days after the date that the person knows the information required to be furnished under subsection (2) of this section, if the person did not know and could not reasonably have known the information in sufficient time to provide the sixty-days' notice, and it is not reasonable to delay the relocation.
(2)(a) The notice of intended relocation of the child must include: (i) An address at which service of process may be accomplished during the period for objection; (ii) a brief statement of the specific reasons for the intended relocation of the child; and (iii) a notice to the nonrelocating person that an objection to the intended relocation of the child or to the relocating person's proposed revised residential schedule must be filed with the court and served on the opposing person within thirty days or the relocation of the child will be permitted and the residential schedule may be modified pursuant to RCW 26.09.500. The notice shall not be deemed to be in substantial compliance for purposes of RCW 26.09.470 unless the notice contains the following statement: "THE RELOCATION OF THE CHILD WILL BE PERMITTED AND THE PROPOSED REVISED RESIDENTIAL SCHEDULE MAY BE CONFIRMED UNLESS, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, YOU FILE A PETITION AND MOTION WITH THE COURT TO BLOCK THE RELOCATION OR OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED REVISED RESIDENTIAL SCHEDULE AND SERVE THE PETITION AND MOTION ON THE PERSON PROPOSING RELOCATION AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ENTITLED BY COURT ORDER TO RESIDENTIAL TIME OR VISITATION WITH THE CHILD."
(b) Except as provided in RCW 26.09.450 and 26.09.460, the following information shall also be included in every notice of intended relocation of the child, if available:
(i) The specific street address of the intended new residence, if known, or as much of the intended address as is known, such as city and state;
(ii) The new mailing address, if different from the intended new residence address;
(iii) The new home telephone number;
(iv) The name and address of the child's new school and day care facility, if applicable;
(v) The date of the intended relocation of the child; and
(vi) A proposal in the form of a proposed parenting plan for a revised schedule of residential time or visitation with the child, if any.
(3) A person required to give notice of an intended relocation of the child has a continuing duty to promptly update the information required with the notice as that new information becomes known.
[ 2000 c 21 s 6.]

Notes:

Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · 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× “Clerk's Papers (CP) at 18; see RCW 26.09.440. [5] The record does not clearly indicate whether Shannon meant that she did not want to move (1) from Puyallup, (2) from Edmonds, (3) to Omak, or (4) from her then current school.”
In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Clerk’s Papers at 18; see RCW 26.09.440. The record does not clearly indicate whether Shannon meant that she did not want to move (1) from Puyallup, (2) from Edmonds, (3) to Omak, or (4) from her then current school.”
In re the Marriage of Raskob, 183 Wash. App. 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “” This average triggered the parenting plan’s relocation notice provisions, which mirror the requirements of RCW 26.09.440. It is undisputed that the only notice Josh received was an e-mail from Nanako, sent one month before her move.”
In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Civil Rule 55 ¶8 Roberson contends the trial court should have allowed her to relocate by default because Pennamen did not file a timely objection as required by RCW 26.09.440(1). Roberson claims that RCW 26.”
Bay v. Jensen, 147 Wash. App. 641 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “” RCW 26.09.440(l)(b)(ii). Notice may be limited or delayed by 21 days in certain circumstances, including if the parent is relocating to avoid a clear, immediate, and unreasonable risk to the health or safety of a person or the child.”
Bay v. Jensen, 196 P.3d 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “" RCW 26.09.440(1). Notice may be limited or delayed by 21 days in certain circumstances, including if the parent is relocating to avoid a clear, immediate, and unreasonable risk to the health or safety of a person or the child.”
In Re Marriage of Pennamen, 146 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Civil Rule 55 ¶ 8 Roberson contends the trial court should have allowed her to relocate by default because Pennamen did not file a timely objection as required by RCW 26.09.440(1). Roberson claims that RCW 26.”
Shawna Hubbard, Resp. v. Marcus Ross, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “72600-5-1/3 not complied with RCW 26.09.440 by personally serving him with a copy of the amended notice or providing 60 days' notice.”
In the Matter of the Marriage of Keri Orate & Scott Orate (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “of Orate On April 30, 2018, and pursuant to RCW 26.09.440, Ms. Shrewsberry had Mr. Orate formally served with a notice of intent to relocate with child and a proposed parenting plan.”
Grzegorz Gogolowicz, Appellant\\cross-respondent v. Magdalena Gogolowicz, Respondent\\cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “On May 16, 2017, Grzegorz filed (1) a motion for contempt, claiming that Magdalena had failed to provide statutory notice of her intent to relocate under RCW 26.09.440, (2) an objection to relocation, and (3) a petition seeking a major modification to the parenting plan.”
In Re: David Ryan Bender, V. Maira Joie Bender (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “See RCW 26.09.440 (form and content of notice); see also RCW 26.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Nanako Tsujimoto Raskob, App v. Josh Ian Raskob, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “" This average triggered the parenting plan's relocation notice provisions, which mirror the requirements of RCW 26.09.440. It is undisputed that the only notice Josh received was an e-mail from Nanako, sent one month before her move.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.440(1) — 3 cases
In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Civil Rule 55 ¶8 Roberson contends the trial court should have allowed her to relocate by default because Pennamen did not file a timely objection as required by RCW 26.09.440(1). Roberson claims that RCW 26.”
Bay v. Jensen, 196 P.3d 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “" RCW 26.09.440(1). Notice may be limited or delayed by 21 days in certain circumstances, including if the parent is relocating to avoid a clear, immediate, and unreasonable risk to the health or safety of a person or the child.”
In Re Marriage of Pennamen, 146 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Civil Rule 55 ¶ 8 Roberson contends the trial court should have allowed her to relocate by default because Pennamen did not file a timely objection as required by RCW 26.09.440(1). Roberson claims that RCW 26.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.440(l)(b)(ii) — 1 case
Bay v. Jensen, 147 Wash. App. 641 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “” RCW 26.09.440(l)(b)(ii). Notice may be limited or delayed by 21 days in certain circumstances, including if the parent is relocating to avoid a clear, immediate, and unreasonable risk to the health or safety of a person or 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.