Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.190 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The family court shall have jurisdiction and full power in all pending cases to make, alter, modify, and enforce all temporary and permanent orders regarding the following: Parenting plans, child support, custody of children, visitation, possession of property, maintenance, contempt, custodial interference, and orders for attorneys' fees, suit money or costs as may appear just and equitable. Court commissioners or judges shall not have authority to require the parties to mediate disputes concerning child support.
(2) Family court investigation, evaluation, mediation, treatment, and reconciliation services, and any other services may be used to assist the court to develop an order as the court deems necessary to preserve the marriage or the domestic partnership, implement an amicable settlement, and resolve the issues in controversy.
[ 2008 c 6 s 1025; 1991 c 367 s 14; 1983 c 219 s 7; 1949 c 50 s 19; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 997-48.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Severability—Effective date—Captions not law—1991 c 367: See notes following RCW 26.09.015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2023 · leading case: Hazen v. Robinson, 49 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hazen v. Robinson, 49 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “As she did below, Calliham relies on RCW 26.12.190(1) and RAP 7.2(d) to support her claim that the trial court had the discretion to award her “suit money.”
In Re Parentage of JH, 49 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “As she did below, Calliham relies on RCW 26.12.190(1) and RAP 7.2(d) to support *161 her claim that the trial court had the discretion to award her "suit money.”
Reddy v. Karr, 9 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.12.190(1). Family court investigators and evaluators assist the court to develop such orders as the court deems necessary to resolve parenting controversies between divorcing parents.”
Reddy v. Karr, 102 Wash. App. 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.12.190(1). Family court investigators and evaluators assist the court to develop such orders as the court deems necessary to resolve parenting controversies between divorcing parents.”
Bank of Am., NA v. Owens, 173 Wash. 2d 40 (Wash. 2011). “This is an award of temporary attorney fees or suit money, as authorized by RCW 26.12.190. We have long held *52 that such an order is a final judgment.”
Bank of Am., NA v. Owens, 266 P.3d 211 (Wash. 2011). “This is an award of temporary attorney fees or suit money, as authorized by RCW 26.12.190. We have long held that such an order is a final judgment.”
Becky Develle, V Landon Poppleton (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “15 This court noted that immunity applied even though the investigator had no decision-making authority or capacity to affect her recommendations; the court retained sole responsibility for making parenting plan decisions.”
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Lori Van de Graaf & Rod D. Van de Graaf (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “140 and RCW 26.12.190 authorize the court to award “suit money” on any 2 The initial order was originally part of Van de Graaf I, but we have moved our consideration of that issue to this case.”
Laurence Coates Bateman, V. Phavy Pel (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “175 and RCW 26.12.190 in support of reversal, these statutes provide only that the trial court “may” appoint a GAL or use FCS services under certain circumstances.”
Azita Shirkhanloo, App. v. Laurie Olsen & Edward Schau, Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “The mother sued the investigator, alleging that the investigator performed a negligent parenting evaluation.”
Grzegorz Gogolowicz, Appellant\\cross-respondent v. Magdalena Gogolowicz, Respondent\\cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “” RCW 26.12.190(1). 19 No. 80301-8-I/20 The trial court awarded Magdalena $50,000 in pretrial attorney fees on November 13, 2018, when granting the fifth continuance in the matter: “The father shall pay the mother $50,000.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.190(1) — 8 cases
Hazen v. Robinson, 49 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “As she did below, Calliham relies on RCW 26.12.190(1) and RAP 7.2(d) to support her claim that the trial court had the discretion to award her “suit money.”
In Re Parentage of JH, 49 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “As she did below, Calliham relies on RCW 26.12.190(1) and RAP 7.2(d) to support *161 her claim that the trial court had the discretion to award her "suit money.”
Reddy v. Karr, 9 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 26.12.190(1). Family court investigators and evaluators assist the court to develop such orders as the court deems necessary to resolve parenting controversies between divorcing parents.”
Reddy v. Karr, 102 Wash. App. 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 26.12.190(1). Family court investigators and evaluators assist the court to develop such orders as the court deems necessary to resolve parenting controversies between divorcing parents.”
Becky Develle, V Landon Poppleton (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “15 This court noted that immunity applied even though the investigator had no decision-making authority or capacity to affect her recommendations; the court retained sole responsibility for making parenting plan decisions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.190(2) — 5 cases
Reddy v. Karr, 9 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 26.12.190(1). Family court investigators and evaluators assist the court to develop such orders as the court deems necessary to resolve parenting controversies between divorcing parents.”
Reddy v. Karr, 102 Wash. App. 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 26.12.190(1). Family court investigators and evaluators assist the court to develop such orders as the court deems necessary to resolve parenting controversies between divorcing parents.”
Becky Develle, V Landon Poppleton (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “15 This court noted that immunity applied even though the investigator had no decision-making authority or capacity to affect her recommendations; the court retained sole responsibility for making parenting plan decisions.”
Laurence Coates Bateman, V. Phavy Pel (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “175 and RCW 26.12.190 in support of reversal, these statutes provide only that the trial court “may” appoint a GAL or use FCS services under certain circumstances.”
Azita Shirkhanloo, App. v. Laurie Olsen & Edward Schau, Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “The mother sued the investigator, alleging that the investigator performed a negligent parenting evaluation.”
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.