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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.909 (2026)

Decrees entered into prior to January 1, 1988

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Decrees under this chapter involving child custody, visitation, or child support entered in actions commenced prior to January 1, 1988, shall be deemed to be parenting plans for purposes of this chapter.
(2) The enactment of the 1987 revisions to this chapter does not constitute substantially changed circumstances for the purposes of modifying decrees entered under this chapter in actions commenced prior to January 1, 1988, involving child custody, visitation, or child support. Any action to modify any decree involving child custody, visitation, child support, or a parenting plan shall be governed by the provisions of this chapter.
(3) Actions brought for clarification or interpretation of decrees entered under this chapter in actions commenced prior to January 1, 1988, shall be determined under the law in effect immediately prior to January 1, 1988.
[ 1990 1st ex.s. c 2 s 16; 1989 c 375 s 18; 1987 c 460 s 24.]

Notes:

Effective dates—Severability—1990 1st ex.s. c 2: See notes following RCW 26.09.100.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1991–1997 · leading case: Matter of Marriage of Greenlaw, 869 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matter of Marriage of Greenlaw, 869 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1994). “RCW 26.09.909(2). However, because this case involves an interstate jurisdictional issue, the use of the terms "custody” and "visitation” is appropriate and these terms are used herein.”
State v. Pesta, 942 P.2d 1013 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “13 RCW 26.09.909. 14 RCW 26.09.184(2). 15 RCW 26.”
In re the Marriage of Perez, 803 P.2d 825 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “See RCW 26.09.909. In this case, both parties expressly agree that their action was not brought to modify their decree — Engdahl characterizes the action as an attempt to clarify and interpret the parties' intent, while Perez asserts that the action is to enforce the decree…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.909(2) — 1 case
Matter of Marriage of Greenlaw, 869 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1994). “RCW 26.09.909(2). However, because this case involves an interstate jurisdictional issue, the use of the terms "custody” and "visitation” is appropriate and these terms are used herein.”
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.