Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.19
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.19.001 (2026)

Legislative intent and finding

✓ 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 intends, in establishing a child support schedule, to insure [ensure] that child support orders are adequate to meet a child's basic needs and to provide additional child support commensurate with the parents' income, resources, and standard of living. The legislature also intends that the child support obligation should be equitably apportioned between the parents.
The legislature finds that these goals will be best achieved by the adoption and use of a statewide child support schedule. Use of a statewide schedule will benefit children and their parents by:
(1) Increasing the adequacy of child support orders through the use of economic data as the basis for establishing the child support schedule;
(2) Increasing the equity of child support orders by providing for comparable orders in cases with similar circumstances; and
(3) Reducing the adversarial nature of the proceedings by increasing voluntary settlements as a result of the greater predictability achieved by a uniform statewide child support schedule.
[ 1988 c 275 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective dates—1988 c 275: "Except for sections 4, 8, and 9 of this act, this act shall take effect July 1, 1988. Sections 4 and 8 of this act are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [March 24, 1988]." [ 1988 c 275 s 23.]
Severability—1988 c 275: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1988 c 275 s 24.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 107 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: In re the Marriage of McCausland, 152 P.3d 1013 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of McCausland, 152 P.3d 1013 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 7× “f 2 We hold that the trial court may not use extrapolation when it exceeds the economic table in the child support schedule because extrapolation is merely a mechanical extension of the economic table and RCW 26.19.001 requires the amount of support to be based on the child’s or…”
In re the Marriage of Daubert, 99 P.3d 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “” (quoting RCW 26.19.001). He also relies on In re Marriage of Fiorito, 112 Wn.”
In Re Marriage of Daubert, 99 P.3d 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “In addition to necessity for and reasonableness of the amounts, the trial court must consider whether the additional amount to be paid is "commensurate with the parents' income, resources and standard of living," in light of the totality of the financial circumstances.”
Wilson v. Wilson, 267 P.3d 485 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “" RCW 26.19.001 (emphasis added). And the legislature also included the language "[m]aintenance actually received" and "maintenance to the extent actually paid" in the calculation of the parents' income for purposes of child support.”
In Re the Marriage of Mattson, 976 P.2d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “The Legislature explained its intent for child support statutes in RCW 26.19.001. 5 Child support is designed with the primary goal of preventing a harmful reduction in a child’s standard of living, in the best interests of children *600 whose parents are divorced.”
In Re Marriage of Fiorito, 50 P.3d 298 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “The governing statute, RCW 26.19.001, states that the Legislature's intent is to ensure that a child support order meets the child's needs and provides support commensurate with the parents' income, resources, and standard of living, and to equitably apportion the child support…”
McCausland v. McCausland, 152 P.3d 1013 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 7× “¶ 2 We hold that the trial court may not use extrapolation when it exceeds the economic table in the child support schedule because extrapolation is merely a mechanical extension of the economic table and RCW 26.19.001 requires the amount of support to be based on the child's or…”
State ex rel. of M.M.G. v. Graham, 123 Wash. App. 931 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “RCW 26.19.001. Cunliffe argued that RCW 26.”
In Re Marriage of Griffin, 791 P.2d 519 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.19.001 explains the Legislature's intent in establishing a statewide child support schedule: The legislature intends, in establishing a child support schedule, to insure that child support orders are adequate to meet a child's basic needs and to provide additional child…”
In re the Marriage of Scanlon, 109 Wash. App. 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “at 804 ; RCW 26.19.001. RCW 26.19.001. There is a minute entry in the record, stating that Judge Haley determined the salary data offered by Witrak to be authentic, but there is no order in the record admitting it into evidence.”
In Re Marriage of Scanlon & Witrak, 34 P.3d 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “2d 330 ; RCW 26.19.001. [29] RCW 26.19.001. [30] There is a minute entry in the record stating that Judge Haley determined the salary data offered by Witrak to be authentic, but there is no order in the record admitting it into evidence.”
In re the Marriage of Wilson, 165 Wash. App. 333 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” RCW 26.19.001 (emphasis added). And the legislature also included the language “[m]aintenance actually received” and “maintenance to the extent actually paid” in the calculation of the parents’ income for purposes of child support.”
Show all 107 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.19.001(1) — 4 cases
In Re the Marriage of Sacco, 784 P.2d 1266 (Wash. 1990).
Newell v. Newell, 72 P.3d 1130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
In the Matter of Marriage of Simpson, 790 P.2d 177 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
Matter of Marriage of Abel, 886 P.2d 1139 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.19.001(2) — 1 case
Matter of Marriage of McDaniel, 947 P.2d 1225 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.19.001(3) — 4 cases
In re the Marriage of Schnurman, 316 P.3d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Harmon v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 134 Wash. 2d 523 (Wash. 1998).
Harmon v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Serv., 951 P.2d 770 (Wash. 1998).
In Re The Marriage Of: Lalida Schnurman v. Seth Schnurman (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
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.