Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.16.125 (2026)

Custody of children

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Henceforth the rights and responsibilities of the parents in the absence of misconduct shall be equal, and one parent shall be as fully entitled to the custody, control and earnings of the children as the other parent, and in case of one parent's death, the other parent shall come into full and complete control of the children and their estate.
[ 2008 c 6 s 640; Code 1881 s 2399; 1879 p 151 s 2; RRS s 6907. Formerly RCW 26.20.020.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: State v. LaCaze, 630 P.2d 436 (Wash. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. LaCaze, 630 P.2d 436 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.16.125. See also In re Hudson, 13 Wn.”
Dille v. Toland, 329 P.3d 878 (Wash. 2014). “2d 494 (1985); that as the sole surviving parent, Paul would be entitled under Washington state law to control of Erika absent some justification for withholding custody, RCW 26.16.125; and that his substantive due process interests in his child would be abridged if the decree…”
State v. Tuitasi, 729 P.2d 75 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “The defendant's threat was to take the child by force or intimidation and therefore "without consent".”
Weber v. Weber, 496 P.2d 576 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). “(See RCW 26.16.125.) The children were residing in Washington with their mother, and consequently were domiciled in Washington.”
Est. of Toland v. Toland, 286 P.3d 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.16.125. 10 As RCW 26.09.002 explains, Washington’s public policy favors fostering the parent-child relationship: *840 In any proceeding between parents under this chapter, the best interests of the child shall be the standard by which the court determines and allocates…”
Michelle Conley, Resp/x-app v. Christopher Rugh, App/x-resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 14× “Michelle Conley cross appeals, contending the trial court erred when it found Rugh did not engage in abusive use of conflict and allowed Rugh to petition for a future modification of the plan without a finding of adequate cause.”
In Re The Parenting & Support Of E.l.c., James Childs v. Olivia Walton (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 11× “In support of his request, Childs relied upon RCW 26.16.125 and arguments that failure to adopt his proposed parenting plan would violate his constitutional rights.”
Geoffrey Nelson Burns, V. Dina Patricia Burns (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “MODIFICATION OF PARENTING PLAN Dina challenges the parenting plan on the grounds that the trial court failed to order equal residential time under RCW 26.16.125, failed to prevent Geoffrey’s abusive litigation, and failed to consider the psychological effect of Geoffrey’s…”
In re Est. of Toland (Wash. 2014). “2d 494 (1985); that as the sole surviving parent, Paul would be entitled under Washington state law to control of Erika absent some justification for withholding custody, RCW 26.16.125; and that his substantive due process interests in his child would be abridged if the decree…”
In re Est. of Toland (Wash. 2014). “2d 494 (1985); that as the sole surviving parent, Paul would be entitled under Washington state law to control of Erika absent some justification for withholding custody, RCW 26.16.125; and that his substantive due process interests in his child would be abridged if the decree…”
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.