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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.525 (2026)

Substantially equal residential time

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) If the person proposing relocation of a child has substantially equal residential time:
(a) The presumption in RCW 26.09.520 does not apply; and
(b) In determining whether to restrict a parent's right to relocate with a child or in determining a modification of the court order as defined in RCW 26.09.410 based on the proposed relocation, the court shall make a determination in the best interests of the child considering the factors set forth in RCW 26.09.520.
(2) For the purposes of this section and RCW 26.09.430, "substantially equal residential time" includes arrangements in which forty-five percent or more of the child's residential time is spent with each parent. In determining the percentage, the court must (a) consider only time spent with parents and not any time ordered for nonparents under chapter 26.11 RCW; and (b) base its determination on the amount of time designated in the court order unless: (i) There has been an ongoing pattern of substantial deviation from the residential schedule; (ii) both parents have agreed to the deviation; and (iii) the deviation is not based on circumstances that are beyond either parent's ability to control.
[ 2019 c 79 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 540 P.3d 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 540 P.3d 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 5× “The court determined that the DVPO was the controlling court order under RCW 26.09.525. The court reasoned that the DVPO order fell within the definition of “court order” under RCW 26.”
Arynn Hauk, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Brandon Wuesthoff, Respondent/Cross-Appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 23× “The court first considered RCW 26.09.525 in order to determine whether or not Ms.”
Patrick Crain v. Siri Pearson, fka Siri Crain (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7× “520 and RCW 26.09.525(1)(a). The residential schedule was modified to provide that Mr.”
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 534 P.3d 853 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 5× “The court determined that the DVPO was the controlling court order under RCW 26.09.525. The court reasoned that the DVPO order fell within the definition of “court order” under RCW 26.”
In Re The Marriage Of Jennifer M. Hillegas, V. David M. Hillegas (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.09.525 provides that “[i]n determining whether to restrict a parent’s right to relocate with a child .”
Christy M. Mckinley v. Benjamin S. Porter (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “79, § 1, codified as RCW 26.09.525. That amendment does not affect the outcome in this case.”
In the Matter of the Dom. P'ship of: Tammy Vanderzanden & Miranda Detore (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “1 See RCW 26.09.525. She requested the court clarify its finding that Vanderzanden is the “primary parent” in light of the statutory definition.”
Parentage Of H.n.c.: Melissa Curry, V. Michael Coffman (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “410(2) (“ ‘Relocate’ means a change in principal residence either permanently or for a protracted period of time, or a change in residence in cases where parents have substantially equal residential time as defined by RCW 26.09.525.”). 27 No. 57694-5-II residential schedule.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.525(1) — 2 cases
In Re The Marriage Of Jennifer M. Hillegas, V. David M. Hillegas (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 26.09.525 provides that “[i]n determining whether to restrict a parent’s right to relocate with a child .”
Arynn Hauk, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Brandon Wuesthoff, Respondent/Cross-Appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “The court first considered RCW 26.09.525 in order to determine whether or not Ms.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.525(1)(a) — 2 cases
Patrick Crain v. Siri Pearson, fka Siri Crain (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “520 and RCW 26.09.525(1)(a). The residential schedule was modified to provide that Mr.”
Arynn Hauk, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Brandon Wuesthoff, Respondent/Cross-Appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “The court first considered RCW 26.09.525 in order to determine whether or not Ms.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.525(1)(b) — 3 cases
Patrick Crain v. Siri Pearson, fka Siri Crain (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “520 and RCW 26.09.525(1)(a). The residential schedule was modified to provide that Mr.”
Arynn Hauk, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Brandon Wuesthoff, Respondent/Cross-Appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “The court first considered RCW 26.09.525 in order to determine whether or not Ms.”
In Re The Marriage Of Jennifer M. Hillegas, V. David M. Hillegas (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 26.09.525 provides that “[i]n determining whether to restrict a parent’s right to relocate with a child .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.525(2) — 4 cases
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 540 P.3d 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The court determined that the DVPO was the controlling court order under RCW 26.09.525. The court reasoned that the DVPO order fell within the definition of “court order” under RCW 26.”
Arynn Hauk, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Brandon Wuesthoff, Respondent/Cross-Appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “The court first considered RCW 26.09.525 in order to determine whether or not Ms.”
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 534 P.3d 853 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The court determined that the DVPO was the controlling court order under RCW 26.09.525. The court reasoned that the DVPO order fell within the definition of “court order” under RCW 26.”
Patrick Crain v. Siri Pearson, fka Siri Crain (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “520 and RCW 26.09.525(1)(a). The residential schedule was modified to provide that Mr.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.525(2)(b) — 3 cases
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 540 P.3d 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The court determined that the DVPO was the controlling court order under RCW 26.09.525. The court reasoned that the DVPO order fell within the definition of “court order” under RCW 26.”
Arynn Hauk, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Brandon Wuesthoff, Respondent/Cross-Appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “The court first considered RCW 26.09.525 in order to determine whether or not Ms.”
Amanda R. Cowan, V. Joshua T. Cowan, 534 P.3d 853 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The court determined that the DVPO was the controlling court order under RCW 26.09.525. The court reasoned that the DVPO order fell within the definition of “court order” under RCW 26.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.525(2)(b)(i) — 1 case
Arynn Hauk, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Brandon Wuesthoff, Respondent/Cross-Appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “The court first considered RCW 26.09.525 in order to determine whether or not 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.