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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.19.080 (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 basic child support obligation derived from the economic table shall be allocated between the parents based on each parent's share of the combined monthly net income.
(2) Health care costs are not included in the economic table. Monthly health care costs shall be shared by the parents in the same proportion as the basic child support obligation. Health care costs shall include, but not be limited to, medical, dental, orthodontia, vision, chiropractic, mental health treatment, prescription medications, and other similar costs for care and treatment.
(3) Day care and special child rearing expenses, such as tuition and long-distance transportation costs to and from the parents for visitation purposes, are not included in the economic table. These expenses shall be shared by the parents in the same proportion as the basic child support obligation. If an obligor pays court or administratively ordered day care or special child rearing expenses that are not actually incurred, the obligee must reimburse the obligor for the overpayment if the overpayment amounts to at least twenty percent of the obligor's annual day care or special child rearing expenses. The obligor may institute an action in the superior court or file an application for an adjudicative hearing with the department of social and health services for reimbursement of day care and special child rearing expense overpayments that amount to twenty percent or more of the obligor's annual day care and special child rearing expenses. Any ordered overpayment reimbursement shall be applied first as an offset to child support arrearages of the obligor. If the obligor does not have child support arrearages, the reimbursement may be in the form of a direct reimbursement by the obligee or a credit against the obligor's future support payments. If the reimbursement is in the form of a credit against the obligor's future child support payments, the credit shall be spread equally over a twelve-month period. Absent agreement of the obligee, nothing in this section entitles an obligor to pay more than his or her proportionate share of day care or other special child rearing expenses in advance and then deduct the overpayment from future support transfer payments.
(4) The court may exercise its discretion to determine the necessity for and the reasonableness of all amounts ordered in excess of the basic child support obligation.
[ 2009 c 84 s 5; 1996 c 216 s 1; 1990 1st ex.s. c 2 s 7.]

Notes:

Effective date—2009 c 84: See note following RCW 26.19.020.
Effective dates—Severability—1990 1st ex.s. c 2: See notes following RCW 26.09.100.
PDF

RCW 26.19.080

Allocation of child support obligation between parents—Court-ordered day care or special child rearing expenses. (Effective January 1, 2026.)

(1) The basic child support obligation derived from the economic table shall be allocated between the parents based on each parent's share of the combined monthly net income.
(2) Health care costs are not included in the economic table. Monthly health care costs shall be shared by the parents in the same proportion as the basic child support obligation. Health care costs shall include, but not be limited to, medical, dental, orthodontia, vision, chiropractic, mental health treatment, prescription medications, and other similar costs for care and treatment.
(3) Day care and special child rearing expenses, such as tuition and long-distance transportation costs to and from the parents for visitation purposes, are not included in the economic table. These expenses shall be shared by the parents in the same proportion as the basic child support obligation. If an obligor pays court or administratively ordered day care or special child rearing expenses that are not actually incurred, the obligee must reimburse the obligor for the overpayment if the overpayment amounts to at least 20 percent of the obligor's annual day care or special child rearing expenses. The obligor may institute an action in the superior court or file an application for an adjudicative hearing with the department of social and health services for reimbursement of day care and special child rearing expense overpayments that amount to 20 percent or more of the obligor's annual day care and special child rearing expenses. Any ordered overpayment reimbursement shall be applied first as an offset to child support arrearages of the obligor. If the obligor does not have child support arrearages, the reimbursement may be in the form of a direct reimbursement by the obligee or a credit against the obligor's future support payments. If the reimbursement is in the form of a credit against the obligor's future child support payments, the credit shall be spread equally over a 12-month period. Absent agreement of the obligee, nothing in this section entitles an obligor to pay more than his or her proportionate share of day care or other special child rearing expenses in advance and then deduct the overpayment from future support transfer payments.
(4) The court may exercise its discretion to determine the necessity for and the reasonableness of all amounts ordered in excess of the basic child support obligation.
[ 2025 c 272 s 3; 2009 c 84 s 5; 1996 c 216 s 1; 1990 1st ex.s. c 2 s 7.]

Notes:

Effective date—2025 c 272 ss 1-3 and 14: See note following RCW 26.19.065.
Rule-making authority—2025 c 272: See note following RCW 26.09.345.
Effective date—2009 c 84: See note following RCW 26.19.020.
Effective dates—Severability—1990 1st ex.s. c 2: See notes following RCW 26.09.100.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 96 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Fairchild, 207 P.3d 449 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Fairchild, 207 P.3d 449 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 11× “RCW 26.19.080(3). In this case, a superior court judge reversed a commissioner’s reimbursement order, concluding Janis Davis, formerly known as Janis Fairchild, satisfied her burden of proof in showing day care and medical expenses were incurred.”
McCausland v. McCausland, 118 P.3d 944 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “065 provides standards for the upper limits of child support ordered by the court: (1) Limit at forty-five percent of a parent's net income. Neither parent's total child support obligation may exceed forty-five percent of net income except for good cause shown.”
In re the Marriage of McCausland, 129 Wash. App. 390 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “065 provides standards for the upper limits of child support ordered by the court: *406 (1) Limit at forty-five percent of a parent’s net income. Neither parent’s total child support obligation may exceed forty-five percent of net income except for good cause shown.”
In re the Marriage of Daubert, 99 P.3d 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “RCW 26.19.080(2). Day care and special child rearing expenses are also additional amounts of child support to be apportioned between the parents.”
State ex rel. J.V.G. v. Van Guilder, 137 Wash. App. 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “22 RCW 26.19.080(3) requires that extraordinary expenses “shall be shared by the parents in the same proportion as the basic child support obligation.”
In Re the Marriage of Mattson, 976 P.2d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “The court also noted that a common law equitable right to reimbursement existed under certain specific circumstances before the amendment of RCW 26.19.080. Id. at 968. But Mattson made no arguments based in equity; he merely asserted that because Hall had not proven she spent…”
In Re Marriage of Daubert, 99 P.3d 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “RCW 26.19.080(2). Day care and special child rearing expenses are also additional amounts of child support to be apportioned between the parents.”
Goodell v. Goodell, 122 P.3d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “RCW 26.19.080(1). When the court refused to impute any income to Cathie, it also extinguished Cathie's obligation to share in payment of extraordinary health care costs.”
In re the Marriage of McNaught, 359 P.3d 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.19.080(3) states that long-distance travel costs “to and from the parents for visitation .”
In re the Marriage of Katare, 105 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “080(3), long-distance travel expenses must be allocated in the same proportion as the basic child support calculation.”
In Re the Marriage of Hawthorne, 957 P.2d 1296 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 10× “— Brent Hawthorne appeals the trial court’s order granting Angela (Darlene) Hawthorne’s motion to modify child support, arguing that the court improperly relied on RCW 26.19.080 in ordering reimbursement of daycare expenses his former wife overpaid.”
In Re Yeamans, 72 P.3d 775 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “He also challenges the portion of the trial court's order requiring him to pay 100 percent of the cost of child care during Knowles' residential time if he exercises his option to object to the Grubers as child care providers.”
Show all 96 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.19.080(1) — 29 cases
In Re Marriage of Scanlon & Witrak, 34 P.3d 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of Schnurman, 316 P.3d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Goodell v. Goodell, 122 P.3d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 26.19.080(1). When the court refused to impute any income to Cathie, it also extinguished Cathie's obligation to share in payment of extraordinary health care costs.”
McCausland v. McCausland, 118 P.3d 944 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “065 provides standards for the upper limits of child support ordered by the court: (1) Limit at forty-five percent of a parent's net income. Neither parent's total child support obligation may exceed forty-five percent of net income except for good cause shown.”
In re the Marriage of Katare, 105 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “080(3), long-distance travel expenses must be allocated in the same proportion as the basic child support calculation.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.19.080(2) — 20 cases
McCausland v. McCausland, 118 P.3d 944 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “065 provides standards for the upper limits of child support ordered by the court: (1) Limit at forty-five percent of a parent's net income. Neither parent's total child support obligation may exceed forty-five percent of net income except for good cause shown.”
In re the Marriage of McCausland, 129 Wash. App. 390 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “065 provides standards for the upper limits of child support ordered by the court: *406 (1) Limit at forty-five percent of a parent’s net income. Neither parent’s total child support obligation may exceed forty-five percent of net income except for good cause shown.”
Goodell v. Goodell, 122 P.3d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 26.19.080(1). When the court refused to impute any income to Cathie, it also extinguished Cathie's obligation to share in payment of extraordinary health care costs.”
In re the Marriage of Daubert, 99 P.3d 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 26.19.080(2). Day care and special child rearing expenses are also additional amounts of child support to be apportioned between the parents.”
In re the Marriage of Goodell, 130 Wash. App. 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.19.080(3) — 52 cases
In re the Marriage of Fairchild, 207 P.3d 449 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 26.19.080(3). In this case, a superior court judge reversed a commissioner’s reimbursement order, concluding Janis Davis, formerly known as Janis Fairchild, satisfied her burden of proof in showing day care and medical expenses were incurred.”
In re the Marriage of McNaught, 359 P.3d 811 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 26.19.080(3) states that long-distance travel costs “to and from the parents for visitation .”
In Re the Marriage of Mattson, 976 P.2d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “The court also noted that a common law equitable right to reimbursement existed under certain specific circumstances before the amendment of RCW 26.19.080. Id. at 968. But Mattson made no arguments based in equity; he merely asserted that because Hall had not proven she spent…”
In re the Marriage of Daubert, 99 P.3d 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 26.19.080(2). Day care and special child rearing expenses are also additional amounts of child support to be apportioned between the parents.”
State ex rel. J.V.G. v. Van Guilder, 137 Wash. App. 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “22 RCW 26.19.080(3) requires that extraordinary expenses “shall be shared by the parents in the same proportion as the basic child support obligation.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.19.080(4) — 29 cases
State ex rel. J.V.G. v. Van Guilder, 137 Wash. App. 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “22 RCW 26.19.080(3) requires that extraordinary expenses “shall be shared by the parents in the same proportion as the basic child support obligation.”
In re the Marriage of Daubert, 99 P.3d 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 26.19.080(2). Day care and special child rearing expenses are also additional amounts of child support to be apportioned between the parents.”
In Re Marriage of Daubert, 99 P.3d 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 26.19.080(2). Day care and special child rearing expenses are also additional amounts of child support to be apportioned between the parents.”
In re the Marriage of Katare, 105 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “080(3), long-distance travel expenses must be allocated in the same proportion as the basic child support calculation.”
Yeamans v. Knowles, 117 Wash. App. 593 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
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.