Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.18.010 (2026)
Legislative findings
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that there is an urgent need for vigorous enforcement of child support and maintenance obligations, and that stronger and more efficient statutory remedies need to be established to supplement and complement the remedies provided in chapters 26.09, 26.21A, 26.26A, 26.26B, 74.20, and 74.20A RCW.
Notes:
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2021 · leading case: Rhinevault v. Rhinevault, 959 P.2d 687 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Rhinevault v. Rhinevault, 959 P.2d 687 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “” RCW 26.18.010. Although the legislature cited specific existing statutory remedies it wished to “supplement and complement,” it did not intend this list to be exhaustive.”
Waples v. Yi, 234 P.3d 187 (Wash. 2010). “96 RCW is "to provide a single, uniform procedure for bringing a claim for damages against a local governmental entity"); RCW 26.18.010 (legislative finding that "stronger and more efficient statutory remedies need to be established" in child support and other family law…”
Waples v. Yi, 169 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2010). “96 RCW is “to provide a single, uniform procedure for bringing a claim for damages against a local governmental entity”); RCW 26.18.010 (legislative finding that “stronger and more efficient statutory remedies need to be established” in child support and other family law…”
In Re the Marriage of Capetillo, 932 P.2d 691 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “In light of the Legislature’s finding that "there is an urgent need for vigorous enforcement of child support,” RCW 26.18.010, equitable relief from past-due support obligations should be limited to those cases where enforcement would create a severe hardship on the…”
In re the Marriage of Zandi, 391 P.3d 429 (Wash. 2017). “” RCW 26.18.010. The provision at issue here, RCW 26.”
In re the Marriage of Barone, 100 Wash. App. 241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Furthermore, the Court of Appeals, Division Three, has recently held that, *246 [i]n light of the Legislature’s finding that “there is an urgent need for vigorous enforcement of child support,” RCW 26.18.010, equitable relief from past-due support obligations should be limited…”
State ex rel. Wulfsberg v. MacDonald, 11 P.3d 333 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 26.18.010. Given the purpose behind this legislation and subsection 5’s unambiguous language, the court’s contempt authority to enforce child support arrearages extends past a child’s majority and dependency.”
In Re Marriage of Barone, 996 P.2d 654 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Furthermore, the Court of Appeals, Division Three, has recently held that, [i]n light of the Legislature's finding that "there is an urgent need for vigorous enforcement of child support," RCW 26.18.010, equitable relief from past-due support obligations should be limited to…”
In re Paternity of M.H. (Wash. 2016). “" RCW 26.18.010 (emphasis added). 3 The legislature also mandated that the "remedies provided in [the child support enforcement] chapter" be "liberally construed to assure that all dependent children are adequately supported.”
Ronald C. Moates, V. Deidre D. Moates (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “at 319 (emphasis added) (quoting RCW 26.18.010). Furthermore, equitable relief is not warranted where any resulting hardship is created by the obligor-parent’s “own failure to pay, to inquire, or to seek modification.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Simon Pedersen v. Lone Pedersen (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “" RCW 26.18.010. -13- No. 69265-8-1 /14 RCW 26.”
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.