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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.480 (2026)

Objection to relocation or proposed revised residential schedule

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A party objecting to the intended relocation of the child or the relocating parent's proposed revised residential schedule shall do so by filing the objection with the court and serving the objection on the relocating party and all other persons entitled by court order to residential time or visitation with the child by means of personal service or mailing by any form of mail requiring a return receipt to the relocating party at the address designated for service on the notice of intended relocation and to other parties requiring notice at their mailing address. The objection must be filed and served, including a three-day waiting period if the objection is served by mail, within thirty days of receipt of the notice of intended relocation of the child. The objection shall be in the form of: (a) A petition for modification of the parenting plan pursuant to relocation; or (b) other court proceeding adequate to provide grounds for relief.
(2) Unless the special circumstances described in RCW 26.09.460 apply, the person intending to relocate the child shall not, without a court order, change the principal residence of the child during the period in which a party may object. The order required under this subsection may be obtained ex parte. If the objecting party notes a court hearing to prevent the relocation of the child for a date not more than fifteen days following timely service of an objection to relocation, the party intending to relocate the child shall not change the principal residence of the child pending the hearing unless the special circumstances described in RCW 26.09.460(3) apply.
(3) The administrator for the courts shall develop a standard form, separate from existing dissolution or modification forms, for use in filing an objection to relocation of the child or objection of the relocating person's proposed revised residential schedule.
[ 2000 c 21 s 10.]

Notes:

Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: Osborne v. Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Osborne v. Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.09.480. However, the effect of third party objections is limited by the following provision: A court may not restrict the right of a parent to relocate the child when the sole objection to the relocation is from a third *141 party, unless that third party is entitled to…”
In Re Marriage of Fahey, 262 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.09.480(2). A trial court must conduct a fact-finding hearing, at which the relocating parent benefits from a rebuttable presumption that the relocation will be allowed.”
In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.09.480(2). A trial court must conduct a fact-finding hearing, at which the relocating parent benefits from a rebuttable presumption that the relocation will be allowed.”
In Re Custody of Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.09.480. However, the effect of third-party objections is limited by the following provision: A court may not restrict the right of a parent to relocate the child when the sole objection to the relocation is from a third party, unless that third party is entitled to…”
Ramirez v. Holland, 122 Wash. App. 324 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “…party having court-ordered visitation with the child may file an objection to the relocation of the child. See RCW 26.09.480, .540.”
In Re Parentage of RFR, 93 P.3d 951 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “…party having court-ordered visitation with the child may file an objection to the relocation of the child. See RCW 26.09.480; .540.”
In re the Marriage of McNaught, 359 P.3d 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 26.09.480(2). Wehr, 165 Wn. App. at 612 (citing RCW 26.”
In Re: Gretchen Ruff (fka Gretchen Worthley) v. William Worthley, 393 P.3d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 26.09.480(1), .260(6). And under the CRA or the modification statute, a nonrelocating parent can pursue relief under a temporary order requiring the child to return.”
In re the Marriage of Horner, 58 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 26.09.480(1). RCW 26.09.500(1). RCW 26.”
Momb v. Ragone, 130 P.3d 406 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “…NOTES [*] Judge Philip Thompson is serving as judge pro tempore of the Court of Appeals pursuant to RCW 2.06.150. [1] RCW 26.09.480, .520, and .260(6).”
In Re the Marriage of Wehr, 267 P.3d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 26.09.480(2). ¶5 A trial court must conduct a fact-finding hearing, at which the relocating parent benefits from a rebuttable presumption that the relocation is allowed.”
Marriage of Horner, 58 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “[18] CP at 59. [19] CP at 59-60. [20] CP at 57.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.480(1) — 6 cases
In Re: Gretchen Ruff (fka Gretchen Worthley) v. William Worthley, 393 P.3d 859 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 26.09.480(1), .260(6). And under the CRA or the modification statute, a nonrelocating parent can pursue relief under a temporary order requiring the child to return.”
Osborne v. Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 26.09.480. However, the effect of third party objections is limited by the following provision: A court may not restrict the right of a parent to relocate the child when the sole objection to the relocation is from a third *141 party, unless that third party is entitled to…”
In Re Custody of Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 26.09.480. However, the effect of third-party objections is limited by the following provision: A court may not restrict the right of a parent to relocate the child when the sole objection to the relocation is from a third party, unless that third party is entitled to…”
In re the Marriage of Horner, 58 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 26.09.480(1). RCW 26.09.500(1). RCW 26.”
Marriage of Horner, 58 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “[18] CP at 59. [19] CP at 59-60. [20] CP at 57.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.480(2) — 15 cases
In Re Marriage of Fahey, 262 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 26.09.480(2). A trial court must conduct a fact-finding hearing, at which the relocating parent benefits from a rebuttable presumption that the relocation will be allowed.”
In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 26.09.480(2). A trial court must conduct a fact-finding hearing, at which the relocating parent benefits from a rebuttable presumption that the relocation will be allowed.”
In re the Marriage of McNaught, 359 P.3d 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 26.09.480(2). Wehr, 165 Wn. App. at 612 (citing RCW 26.”
Ramirez v. Holland, 122 Wash. App. 324 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “…party having court-ordered visitation with the child may file an objection to the relocation of the child. See RCW 26.09.480, .540.”
In Re Parentage of RFR, 93 P.3d 951 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “…party having court-ordered visitation with the child may file an objection to the relocation of the child. See RCW 26.09.480; .540.”
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.