Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.18
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.18.040 (2026)

Support or maintenance proceedings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A proceeding to enforce a duty of support or maintenance is commenced:
(a) By filing a petition for an original action; or
(b) By motion in an existing action or under an existing cause number.
(2) Venue for the action is in the superior court of the county where the dependent child resides or is present, where the obligor or obligee resides, or where the prior support or maintenance order was entered. The petition or motion may be filed by the obligee, the state, or any agency providing care or support to the dependent child. A filing fee shall not be assessed in cases brought on behalf of the state of Washington.
(3) The court retains continuing jurisdiction under this chapter until all duties of either support or maintenance, or both, of the obligor, including arrearages, have been satisfied.
[ 2008 c 6 s 1029; 1993 c 426 s 4; 1984 c 260 s 4.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Daly v. Snyder, 72 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Daly v. Snyder, 72 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “[20] The statute explicitly allowing superior courts to use contempt to enforce support or maintenance orders now states: As provided in RCW 26.18.040, the court retains continuing jurisdiction under this chapter and may use a contempt action to enforce a support or maintenance…”
State v. Thompson, 112 Wash. App. 787 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “050, which provides: (1) If an obligor fails to comply with a support or spousal maintenance order, a petition or motion may be filed without notice under RCW 26.18.040 to initiate a contempt action as provided in chapter 7.”
In Re the Marriage of Hunter, 758 P.2d 1019 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “On March 10, 1986, Jeri Hunter initiated proceedings under RCW 26.18.040(l)(a) to enforce Robert Hunter's past due child support.”
State v. Thompson, 51 P.3d 143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “050, which provides: (1) If an obligor fails to comply with a support or spousal maintenance order, a petition or motion may be filed without notice under RCW 26.18.040 to initiate a contempt action as provided in chapter 7.”
State ex rel. Daly v. Snyder, 117 Wash. App. 602 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “[ 20 ] The statute explicitly allowing superior courts to use contempt to enforce support or maintenance orders now states: As provided in RCW 26.18.040, the court retains continuing jurisdiction under this chapter and may use a contempt action to enforce a support or…”
State v. Bloomer, 973 P.2d 1062 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “050 provides: “(1) If an obligor fails to comply with a support or spousal maintenance order, a petition or motion may be filed without notice under RCW 26.18.040 to initiate a contempt action as provided in chapter 7.”
State Ex Rel. Shafer v. Bloomer, 973 P.2d 1062 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “050 provides: "(1) If an obligor fails to comply with a support or spousal maintenance order, a petition or motion may be filed without notice under RCW 26.18.040 to initiate a contempt action as provided in chapter 7.”
Kauzlarich v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 134 P.3d 1183 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 26.18.040(3). DCS does not have the authority to reduce court-ordered child support obligations.”
State ex rel. Wulfsberg v. MacDonald, 11 P.3d 333 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “050, was amended to add subsection 5, which provides: (5) As provided in RCW 26.18.040, the court retains continuing jurisdiction under this chapter and may use a contempt action to enforce a support or maintenance order until the obligor satisfies all duties of support,…”
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Devin Christopher Kienow & Teresa A. Dittentholer Kienow (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “050(2) requires an order to show cause to be personally served on the other party, RCW 26.18.050(5) explicitly states that jurisdiction is continuing as provided in RCW 26.”
In the Matter of the Marriage of Mona Kelley & Donald Kelley (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “26 RCW and RCW 26.18.040. Hines expressly requested that the dissolution court jail Kelley unless he returned the truck or paid the outstanding debt.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Simon Pedersen v. Lone Pedersen (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.18.040(3) states, "The court retains continuing jurisdiction under this chapter until all duties of either support or maintenance, or both, of the obligor, including arrearages, have been satisfied.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.18.040(3) — 8 cases
State Ex Rel. Daly v. Snyder, 72 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “[20] The statute explicitly allowing superior courts to use contempt to enforce support or maintenance orders now states: As provided in RCW 26.18.040, the court retains continuing jurisdiction under this chapter and may use a contempt action to enforce a support or maintenance…”
State ex rel. Daly v. Snyder, 117 Wash. App. 602 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “[ 20 ] The statute explicitly allowing superior courts to use contempt to enforce support or maintenance orders now states: As provided in RCW 26.18.040, the court retains continuing jurisdiction under this chapter and may use a contempt action to enforce a support or…”
Kauzlarich v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 134 P.3d 1183 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 26.18.040(3). DCS does not have the authority to reduce court-ordered child support obligations.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Simon Pedersen v. Lone Pedersen (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 26.18.040(3) states, "The court retains continuing jurisdiction under this chapter until all duties of either support or maintenance, or both, of the obligor, including arrearages, have been satisfied.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Shilo Strickland F/k/a Leyerzapf v. Bjorn Leyerzapf (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.18.040(l)(a) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Hunter, 758 P.2d 1019 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “On March 10, 1986, Jeri Hunter initiated proceedings under RCW 26.18.040(l)(a) to enforce Robert Hunter's past due child support.”
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.