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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.500 (2026)

Failure to object

✓ 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 for good cause shown, if a person entitled to object to the relocation of the child does not file an objection with the court within thirty days after receipt of the relocation notice, then the relocation of the child shall be permitted.
(2) A nonobjecting person shall be entitled to the residential time or visitation with the child specified in the proposed residential schedule included with the relocation notice.
(3) Any person entitled to residential time or visitation with a child under a court order retains his or her right to move for modification under RCW 26.09.260.
(4) If a person entitled to object to the relocation of the child does not file an objection with the court within thirty days after receipt of the relocation notice, a person entitled to residential time with the child may not be held in contempt of court for any act or omission that is in compliance with the proposed revised residential schedule set forth in the notice given.
(5) Any party entitled to residential time or visitation with the child under a court order may, after thirty days have elapsed since the receipt of the notice, obtain ex parte and file with the court an order modifying the residential schedule in conformity with the relocating party's proposed residential schedule specified in the notice upon filing a copy of the notice and proof of service of such notice. A party may obtain ex parte and file with the court an order modifying the residential schedule in conformity with the proposed residential schedule specified in the notice before the thirty days have elapsed if the party files a copy of the notice, proof of service of such notice, and proof that no objection will be filed.
[ 2000 c 21 s 12.]

Notes:

Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “Roberson claims that RCW 26.09.500(1) mandates a default order permitting relocation when a person with notice fails *798 to timely object.”
In re the Marriage of Horner, 93 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 26.09.500(1). II. FACTS Less than six weeks after the parties’ dissolution, petitioner notified respondent that she intended to relocate their daughter Natalie 2 to Edmonds, Washington, so petitioner could care for her ill parents who resided in Edmonds.”
In Re Marriage of Pennamen, 146 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “Roberson claims that RCW 26.09.500(1) mandates a default order permitting relocation when a person with notice fails to timely object.”
In Re Marriage of Horner, 93 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 26.09.500(1). II. FACTS Less than six weeks after the parties' dissolution, petitioner notified respondent that she intended to relocate their daughter Natalie [2] to Edmonds, Washington, so petitioner could care for her ill parents who resided in Edmonds.”
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. The father contends the court erred by refusing to consider the best interests of the child when it dismissed his petition.”
In re the Marriage of Horner, 58 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 26.09.500(1). RCW 26.09.520. RCW 26.09.”
Marriage of Horner, 58 P.3d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “[19] CP at 59-60. [20] CP at 57. [21] CP at 57.”
Parentage Of H.n.c.: Melissa Curry, V. Michael Coffman (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.09.500. Even if a parent does not object to the relocation, the parent retains the right to move for modification of the parenting plan under RCW 26.”
Thomas O. Baicy v. Danelle M. Shay (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “See RCW 26.09.500 (if a party entitled to object fails to do so, "then the relocation of the child shall be permitted").”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.500(1) — 7 cases
In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Roberson claims that RCW 26.09.500(1) mandates a default order permitting relocation when a person with notice fails *798 to timely object.”
In re the Marriage of Horner, 93 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 26.09.500(1). II. FACTS Less than six weeks after the parties’ dissolution, petitioner notified respondent that she intended to relocate their daughter Natalie 2 to Edmonds, Washington, so petitioner could care for her ill parents who resided in Edmonds.”
In Re Marriage of Pennamen, 146 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Roberson claims that RCW 26.09.500(1) mandates a default order permitting relocation when a person with notice fails to timely object.”
In Re Marriage of Horner, 93 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 26.09.500(1). II. FACTS Less than six weeks after the parties' dissolution, petitioner notified respondent that she intended to relocate their daughter Natalie [2] to Edmonds, Washington, so petitioner could care for her ill parents who resided in Edmonds.”
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. The father contends the court erred by refusing to consider the best interests of the child when it dismissed his petition.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.500(3) — 1 case
Parentage Of H.n.c.: Melissa Curry, V. Michael Coffman (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 26.09.500. Even if a parent does not object to the relocation, the parent retains the right to move for modification of the parenting plan under RCW 26.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.500(l) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Roberson claims that RCW 26.09.500(1) mandates a default order permitting relocation when a person with notice fails *798 to timely object.”
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.