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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520 (2026)

Basis for determination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The person proposing to relocate with the child shall provide his or her reasons for the intended relocation. There is a rebuttable presumption that the intended relocation of the child will be permitted. A person entitled to object to the intended relocation of the child may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the detrimental effect of the relocation outweighs the benefit of the change to the child and the relocating person, based upon the following factors. The factors listed in this section are not weighted. No inference is to be drawn from the order in which the following factors are listed:
(1) The relative strength, nature, quality, extent of involvement, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent, siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life;
(2) Prior agreements of the parties;
(3) Whether disrupting the contact between the child and the person seeking relocation would be more detrimental to the child than disrupting contact between the child and the person objecting to the relocation;
(4) Whether either parent or a person entitled to residential time with the child is subject to limitations under RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192;
(5) The reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation and the good faith of each of the parties in requesting or opposing the relocation;
(6) The age, developmental stage, and needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation or its prevention will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child;
(7) The quality of life, resources, and opportunities available to the child and to the relocating party in the current and proposed geographic locations;
(8) The availability of alternative arrangements to foster and continue the child's relationship with and access to the other parent;
(9) The alternatives to relocation and whether it is feasible and desirable for the other party to relocate also;
(10) The financial impact and logistics of the relocation or its prevention; and
(11) For a temporary order, the amount of time before a final decision can be made at trial.
[ 2025 c 166 s 7; 2019 c 79 s 3; 2000 c 21 s 14.]

Notes:

Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Horner, 93 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Horner, 93 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 17× “We reverse the Court of Appeals because the trial court abused its discretion by denying relocation when neither its specific findings of fact nor its oral opinion indicate consideration and balancing of the 11 child relocation factors enumerated in RCW 26.09.520. I.…”
In Re Marriage of Horner, 93 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 18× “We reverse the Court of Appeals because the trial court abused its discretion by denying relocation when neither its specific findings of fact nor its oral opinion indicate consideration and balancing of the 11 child relocation factors enumerated in RCW 26.09.520. I.…”
In Re Marriage of Fahey, 262 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 17× “The trial court then determined that, based on the statutory factors in RCW 26.09.520, Lawrence had not overcome the rebuttable presumption that permitted Lisa, the parent "with whom the child resides a majority of the time," to relocate the children.”
In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 13× “The trial court then determined that based on the statutory factors in RCW 26.09.520, Lawrence had not overcome the rebuttable presumption that permitted Lisa, the parent “with whom the child resides a majority of the time,” to relocate the children.”
Ethan Joseph Bergerson v. Maria Teresa Zurbano, 432 P.3d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 13× “14 does not address whether the CRA’s other provisions, such as the statutory presumption and relocation factors in RCW 26.09.520, would apply. The plain language and policy of the CRA suggests they should not.”
In re the Marriage of Kim, 317 P.3d 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “RCW 26.09.520 provides the legal standard for determining a relocation issue.”
In re the Marriage of McNaught, 359 P.3d 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 12× “Two factors present in both Larson and this case persuade us that RCW 26.09.520 places both the burden of production and persuasion on the objecting person.”
In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 11× “RCW 26.09.520 creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of allowing relocation, provided the detrimental effects of the relocation do not outweigh the benefits to the child or the relocating person.”
Osborne v. Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “Following a timely objection by a party entitled to object, the act provides for a hearing under RCW 26.09.520: Basis for determination. The person proposing to relocate with the child shall provide his or her reasons for the intended relocation.”
In Re Custody of Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “One year after she agreed to entry of a parenting plan that provided significant visitation to her child's paternal great-grandmother Laree Osborne, Tawnya Osborne filed notice of her intent to relocate with the child, as required by Washington's Child Relocation Act, and…”
Bay v. Jensen, 196 P.3d 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “Bay argues that the trial court (1) abused its discretion when it allowed Jensen to relocate his children without examining the 11 statutory factors set out in RCW 26.09.520; (2) violated his right to due process by restricting his access to the courts to enforce his rights…”
Bay v. Jensen, 147 Wash. App. 641 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 9× “¶15 In allowing Jensen ultimately to relocate the children back to Washington pending a final relocation hearing, the trial court noted, “It’s cheaper to live here and to stay here than it is in Southern California.”
Show all 80 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520(1) — 24 cases
In Re Marriage of Fahey, 262 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “The trial court then determined that, based on the statutory factors in RCW 26.09.520, Lawrence had not overcome the rebuttable presumption that permitted Lisa, the parent "with whom the child resides a majority of the time," to relocate the children.”
In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “The trial court then determined that based on the statutory factors in RCW 26.09.520, Lawrence had not overcome the rebuttable presumption that permitted Lisa, the parent “with whom the child resides a majority of the time,” to relocate the children.”
In re the Marriage of Kim, 317 P.3d 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 26.09.520 provides the legal standard for determining a relocation issue.”
Ramirez v. Holland, 122 Wash. App. 324 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
In Re Parentage of RFR, 93 P.3d 951 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520(10) — 10 cases
Parentage Of M.L. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sara Valencia v. Gustavo Adolfo Valencia (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Rick Cyrus Short, V. Maggie Kay Schrader, 503 P.3d 580 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
In Re The Marriage Of: Alexa Ingram-cauchi v. Steven Stout (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
In Re: Parenting Of M.o., Wairimu Kiambuthi v. Toll Obuon (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520(11) — 8 cases
In Re The Marriage Of: Alexa Ingram-cauchi v. Steven Stout (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
In Re: Parenting Of M.o., Wairimu Kiambuthi v. Toll Obuon (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Shelby Brightheart-Pixie v. Dain Olsen (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Shelby Brightheart-Pixie v. Dain Olsen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Joseph Eugene Valleroy, Resp/cross-app V. Melissa Palos App/cross-resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520(2) — 16 cases
In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 26.09.520 creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of allowing relocation, provided the detrimental effects of the relocation do not outweigh the benefits to the child or the relocating person.”
In re the Marriage of Horner, 93 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2004). “We reverse the Court of Appeals because the trial court abused its discretion by denying relocation when neither its specific findings of fact nor its oral opinion indicate consideration and balancing of the 11 child relocation factors enumerated in RCW 26.09.520. I.…”
In Re Marriage of Horner, 93 P.3d 124 (Wash. 2004). “We reverse the Court of Appeals because the trial court abused its discretion by denying relocation when neither its specific findings of fact nor its oral opinion indicate consideration and balancing of the 11 child relocation factors enumerated in RCW 26.09.520. I.…”
In Re Marriage of Fahey, 262 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “The trial court then determined that, based on the statutory factors in RCW 26.09.520, Lawrence had not overcome the rebuttable presumption that permitted Lisa, the parent "with whom the child resides a majority of the time," to relocate the children.”
In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “The trial court then determined that based on the statutory factors in RCW 26.09.520, Lawrence had not overcome the rebuttable presumption that permitted Lisa, the parent “with whom the child resides a majority of the time,” to relocate the children.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520(3) — 19 cases
In re the Marriage of Kim, 317 P.3d 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 26.09.520 provides the legal standard for determining a relocation issue.”
Ethan Joseph Bergerson v. Maria Teresa Zurbano, 432 P.3d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “14 does not address whether the CRA’s other provisions, such as the statutory presumption and relocation factors in RCW 26.09.520, would apply. The plain language and policy of the CRA suggests they should not.”
In re the Marriage of Grigsby, 57 P.3d 1166 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Marriage of Grigsby, 57 P.3d 1166 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Christy M. Mckinley v. Benjamin S. Porter (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520(4) — 16 cases
In re the Marriage of Pennamen, 135 Wash. App. 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 26.09.520 creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of allowing relocation, provided the detrimental effects of the relocation do not outweigh the benefits to the child or the relocating person.”
In Re Marriage of Pennamen, 146 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 540 P.3d 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 534 P.3d 853 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Parentage Of M.L. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520(5) — 16 cases
In re the Marriage of Kim, 317 P.3d 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 26.09.520 provides the legal standard for determining a relocation issue.”
Ethan Joseph Bergerson v. Maria Teresa Zurbano, 432 P.3d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “14 does not address whether the CRA’s other provisions, such as the statutory presumption and relocation factors in RCW 26.09.520, would apply. The plain language and policy of the CRA suggests they should not.”
Parentage Of M.L. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Christy M. Mckinley v. Benjamin S. Porter (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Sara Valencia v. Gustavo Adolfo Valencia (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520(6) — 16 cases
In Re Marriage of Fahey, 262 P.3d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “The trial court then determined that, based on the statutory factors in RCW 26.09.520, Lawrence had not overcome the rebuttable presumption that permitted Lisa, the parent "with whom the child resides a majority of the time," to relocate the children.”
In re the Marriage of Fahey, 164 Wash. App. 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “The trial court then determined that based on the statutory factors in RCW 26.09.520, Lawrence had not overcome the rebuttable presumption that permitted Lisa, the parent “with whom the child resides a majority of the time,” to relocate the children.”
In re the Marriage of Kim, 317 P.3d 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 26.09.520 provides the legal standard for determining a relocation issue.”
Parentage Of M.L. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sara Valencia v. Gustavo Adolfo Valencia (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520(7) — 15 cases
Ethan Joseph Bergerson v. Maria Teresa Zurbano, 432 P.3d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “14 does not address whether the CRA’s other provisions, such as the statutory presumption and relocation factors in RCW 26.09.520, would apply. The plain language and policy of the CRA suggests they should not.”
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 540 P.3d 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Parentage Of M.L. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Christy M. Mckinley v. Benjamin S. Porter (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Sara Valencia v. Gustavo Adolfo Valencia (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520(8) — 12 cases
Shelby Brightheart-Pixie v. Dain Olsen (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Shelby Brightheart-Pixie v. Dain Olsen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Parentage Of M.L. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sara Valencia v. Gustavo Adolfo Valencia (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
In Re The Marriage Of: Alexa Ingram-cauchi v. Steven Stout (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.520(9) — 10 cases
Parentage Of M.L. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sara Valencia v. Gustavo Adolfo Valencia (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Shelby Brightheart-Pixie v. Dain Olsen (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Shelby Brightheart-Pixie v. Dain Olsen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Garth Merrill Rich, V. Jessica Rose Rich (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
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.