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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.470 (2026)

Failure to give notice

✓ 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 failure to provide the required notice is grounds for sanctions, including contempt if applicable.
(2) In determining whether a person has failed to comply with the notice requirements for the purposes of this section, the court may consider whether:
(a) The person has substantially complied with the notice requirements;
(b) The court order in effect at the time of the relocation was issued prior to June 8, 2000, and the person substantially complied with the notice requirements, if any, in the existing order;
(c) A waiver of notice was granted;
(d) A person entitled to receive notice was substantially harmed; and
(e) Any other factor the court deems relevant.
(3) A person entitled to file an objection to the intended relocation of the child may file such objection whether or not the person has received proper notice.
[ 2000 c 21 s 9.]

Notes:

Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2009–2017 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Raskob, 183 Wash. App. 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Raskob, 183 Wash. App. 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “¶28 Under RCW 26.09.470(1), “[t]he failure to provide the required notice is grounds for sanctions.”
In Re: Gretchen Ruff (fka Gretchen Worthley) v. William Worthley, 393 P.3d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 26.09.470(1). Similarly, under the modification statute, if parents with a *433 joint parenting plan have equal decision-making for education, the nonrelocating parent can pursue sanctions or contempt if the relocating parent removed a child from his or her school district.”
In re the Marriage of Chua, 149 Wash. App. 147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “¶34 When read together, RCW 26.09.470 and .510(2) provide no statutory authority for the trial court’s decision to grant Ms.”
In Re Marriage of Chua & Root, 202 P.3d 367 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “¶ 34 Reading RCW 26.09.470 and .510(2) together, there is no statutory authority for the trial court's decision to grant Ms.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Nanako Tsujimoto Raskob, App v. Josh Ian Raskob, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Under RCW 26.09.470(1), "[t]he failure to provide the required notice is grounds for sanctions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.470(1) — 3 cases
In re the Marriage of Raskob, 183 Wash. App. 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “¶28 Under RCW 26.09.470(1), “[t]he failure to provide the required notice is grounds for sanctions.”
In Re: Gretchen Ruff (fka Gretchen Worthley) v. William Worthley, 393 P.3d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 26.09.470(1). Similarly, under the modification statute, if parents with a *433 joint parenting plan have equal decision-making for education, the nonrelocating parent can pursue sanctions or contempt if the relocating parent removed a child from his or her school district.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Nanako Tsujimoto Raskob, App v. Josh Ian Raskob, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Under RCW 26.09.470(1), "[t]he failure to provide the required notice is grounds for sanctions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.470(2)(a) — 2 cases
In re the Marriage of Raskob, 183 Wash. App. 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “¶28 Under RCW 26.09.470(1), “[t]he failure to provide the required notice is grounds for sanctions.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Nanako Tsujimoto Raskob, App v. Josh Ian Raskob, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Under RCW 26.09.470(1), "[t]he failure to provide the required notice is grounds for sanctions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.470(2)(c) — 2 cases
In re the Marriage of Chua, 149 Wash. App. 147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶34 When read together, RCW 26.09.470 and .510(2) provide no statutory authority for the trial court’s decision to grant Ms.”
In Re Marriage of Chua & Root, 202 P.3d 367 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 34 Reading RCW 26.09.470 and .510(2) together, there is no statutory authority for the trial court's decision to grant Ms.”
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.