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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.530 (2026)

Factor not to be considered

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In determining whether to permit or restrain the relocation of the child, the court may not admit evidence on the issue of whether the person seeking to relocate the child will forego his or her own relocation if the child's relocation is not permitted or whether the person opposing relocation will also relocate if the child's relocation is permitted. The court may admit and consider such evidence after it makes the decision to allow or restrain relocation of the child and other parenting, custody, or visitation issues remain before the court, such as what, if any, modifications to the parenting plan are appropriate and who the child will reside with the majority of the time if the court has denied relocation of the child and the person is relocating without the child.
[ 2000 c 21 s 15.]

Notes:

Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: In re the Marriage of McNaught, 359 P.3d 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of McNaught, 359 P.3d 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “27 He further claims that Angelika waived the protections of RCW 26.09.530 and that the trial court failed to consider that she would not relocate unless the court allowed A.”
Osborne v. Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “See RCW 26.09.530. If the court restrains removal of the child, the parent who desired to relocate may say, in effect, “Oh, never mind — I won’t move either.”
In Re Custody of Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “[9] The trial court may not admit evidence on the issue of whether the parent desiring to relocate will actually do so if not permitted to relocate the child as well, until the court has ruled whether relocation of the child will be permitted or restrained.”
Ramirez v. Holland, 122 Wash. App. 324 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “See also RCW 26.09.530 (“In determining whether to permit or restrain the relocation of the child, the court may not admit evidence on the issue of whether the person seeking to relocate the child will forego his or her own relocation if the child’s relocation is not permitted…”
In Re Parentage of RFR, 93 P.3d 951 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “See also RCW 26.09.530 ("In determining whether to permit or restrain the relocation of the child, the court may not admit evidence on the issue of whether the person seeking to relocate the child will forego his or her own relocation if the child's relocation is not permitted…”
In re the Marriage of Rostrom, 339 P.3d 185 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 26.09.530 prohibits the court from “admit [ting] evidence on the issue of whether the person seeking to relocate the child will forego his or her own relocation if the child’s relocation is not permitted.”
Christy M. Mckinley v. Benjamin S. Porter (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “Moreover, the trial court’s reasoning that McKinley could have, or should have, put her homeownership plans on hold to learn the outcome of the relocation trial violates RCW 26.09.530, which prohibits the court from considering “evidence on the issue of whether the person…”
Joseph Eugene Valleroy, Resp/cross-app V. Melissa Palos App/cross-resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “The trial court must assume under RCW 26.09.530 that Palos will relocate regardless of its decision as to J.”
Shelby Brightheart-Pixie v. Dain Olsen (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “Lastly, under RCW 26.09.530, the trial court is expressly prohibited from considering “evidence on the issue of whether the person seeking to relocate the child will forego his or her own relocation if the child’s relocation is not permitted.”
Shelby Brightheart-Pixie v. Dain Olsen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “Lastly, under RCW 26.09.530, the trial court is expressly prohibited from considering “evidence on the issue of whether the person seeking to relocate the child will forego his or her own relocation if the child’s relocation is not permitted.”
Garth Merrill Rich, V. Jessica Rose Rich (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “” RCW 26.09.530. In Shrauner, the trial court erred in its analysis of factor 5, good faith, when it considered the mother’s decision to move before the trial court resolved the relocation issue.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Alexa Ingram-cauchi v. Steven Stout (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The court findings not only ignore the statutory presumption that allows relocation and the undisputed testimony that Alexa tried commuting to California and a week- on/week-off schedule was not feasible, but also violate RCW 26.09.530. RCW 26.09.530 states: In determining…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.