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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.540 (2026)

Objections by nonparents

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
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 residential time or visitation under a court order and has served as the primary residential care provider to the child for a substantial period of time during the thirty-six consecutive months preceding the intended relocation.
[ 2000 c 21 s 16.]

Notes:

Intent—Captions not law—2000 c 21: See notes following RCW 26.09.405.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2002–2006 · 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 13× “, were married in 1992, and had one daughter, Celeste Marie Osborne, who was born on April 4, 1996. When Tawnya and Kenneth divorced in December 1998, their agreed parenting plan provided that Celeste would primarily reside with Kenneth, and limited her residential time with…”
In Re Custody of Osborne, 79 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 14× “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…”
In re the Marriage of Grigsby, 57 P.3d 1166 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “*10 While RCW 26.09.540 provides that relocation may not be prohibited on the sole objection of a third party, the children’s relationship with “significant persons” in their lives is a proper factor for the court to consider.”
In Re Marriage of Grigsby, 57 P.3d 1166 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “While RCW 26.09.540 provides that relocation may not be prohibited on the sole objection of a third party, the children's relationship with "significant persons" in their lives is a proper factor for the court to consider.”
Momb v. Ragone, 130 P.3d 406 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “The trial court, applying Troxel , concluded that RCW 26.09.540 was unconstitutional. Id. at 136 , 79 P.”
In re the Marriage of Momb, 132 Wash. App. 70 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “The trial court, applying Troxel , concluded that RCW 26.09.540 was unconstitutional. Id. at 136 .”
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.