Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.26A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440 (2026)

Adjudicating claim of de facto parentage of child

✓ 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 establish parentage of a child under this section may be commenced only by an individual who:
(a) Is alive when the proceeding is commenced; and
(b) Claims to be a de facto parent of the child.
(2) An individual who claims to be a de facto parent of a child must commence a proceeding to establish parentage of a child under this section:
(a) Before the child attains eighteen years of age; and
(b) While the child is alive.
(3) The following rules govern standing of an individual who claims to be a de facto parent of a child to maintain a proceeding under this section:
(a) The individual must file an initial verified pleading alleging specific facts that support the claim to parentage of the child asserted under this section. The verified pleading must be served on all parents and legal guardians of the child and any other party to the proceeding.
(b) An adverse party, parent, or legal guardian may file a pleading in response to the pleading filed under (a) of this subsection. A responsive pleading must be verified and must be served on parties to the proceeding.
(c) Unless the court finds a hearing is necessary to determine disputed facts material to the issue of standing, the court shall determine, based on the pleadings under (a) and (b) of this subsection, whether the individual has alleged facts sufficient to satisfy by a preponderance of the evidence the requirements of subsection (4)(a) through (g) of this section. If the court holds a hearing under this subsection, the hearing must be held on an expedited basis.
(4) In a proceeding to adjudicate parentage of an individual who claims to be a de facto parent of the child, the court shall adjudicate the individual who claims to be a de facto parent to be a parent of the child if the individual demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(a) The individual resided with the child as a regular member of the child's household for a significant period;
(b) The individual engaged in consistent caretaking of the child;
(c) The individual undertook full and permanent responsibilities of a parent of the child without expectation of financial compensation;
(d) The individual held out the child as the individual's child;
(e) The individual established a bonded and dependent relationship with the child which is parental in nature;
(f) Another parent of the child fostered or supported the bonded and dependent relationship required under (e) of this subsection; and
(g) Continuing the relationship between the individual and the child is in the best interest of the child.
[ 2018 c 6 s 509.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2020–2023 · leading case: In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m., 476 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m., 476 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 49× “To establish standing to maintain a de facto parentage proceeding, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to satisfy seven requirements.”
Lana Walker v. Warren Riley, 498 P.3d 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 13× “ANALYSIS The parties dispute whether Walker has proved facts sufficient to establish standing to bring a de facto parentage action under RCW 26.26A.440. The issues raised in this appeal require us to interpret the statute on de facto parentage.”
E.N. v. T.R., 474 Md. 346 (Md. 2021). “2020) (noting that “RCW 26.26A.440(4)(f) does not reference the child’s other genetic parent.”
Jamie Lee Ponsaran v. Lyndsey Anker (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 51× “26A RCW, requires the trial court to make an initial determination of whether the petition and any response raise “disputed facts material to the issue of standing.”1 We hold today that the proper focuses of that initial determination are whether the petitioner unequivocally…”
Parentage Of A.h., Christian Gruber, V. Melissa Leighanne Headrick, Apppellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 24× “Along with raising constitutional challenges to RCW 26.26A.440, the de facto parentage statute, Headrick argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and implementation of the statute.”
In the Matter of the Parentage of: L.T. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 9× “The current method in Washington for establishing de facto parentage is set by RCW 26.26A.440. 2 This statutory process involves two steps.”
R.T.L. v. K.M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 8× “The court found that the grandmother had not set forth a prima facie case of de facto parentage under RCW 26.26A.440, and thus she did not have standing to intervene.”
In the Matter of the Custody of: SA-M (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 7× “Pinon amended his petition for custody to include a claim under the newly enacted de facto parenting statute, RCW 26.26A.440. This case provides an opportunity to interpret and apply RCW 26.”
In the Matter of the Parentage & Custody of: T.B.M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “RCW 26.26A.440 governs the adjudication of a de facto parentage claim.”
Lavenna Cai & Leon Cai v. Benville Gustaffe (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “Similar to the common law pronouncement, the purpose of the statute is to “‘ensure[ ] that individuals who form strong parent-child bonds with children with the consent and encouragement of the child’s legal parent are not excluded from a determination of parentage simply…”
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Kyllo & Amanda Kyllo (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “Kyllo satisfied all elements of the de facto parenting statute, RCW 26.26A.440, in regards to KMK and that he is her de facto parent.”
Mark D. Stine v. Dep't Of Revenue (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Stine argues that Ray was never adjudicated as such because such claims only arise during familial disputes, of which there were none here. Yet, that is precisely why this doctrine is inapplicable to the facts of this dispute.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(1) — 2 cases
Jamie Lee Ponsaran v. Lyndsey Anker (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “26A RCW, requires the trial court to make an initial determination of whether the petition and any response raise “disputed facts material to the issue of standing.”1 We hold today that the proper focuses of that initial determination are whether the petitioner unequivocally…”
Mark D. Stine v. Dep't Of Revenue (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Stine argues that Ray was never adjudicated as such because such claims only arise during familial disputes, of which there were none here. Yet, that is precisely why this doctrine is inapplicable to the facts of this dispute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(1)(b) — 1 case
Lavenna Cai & Leon Cai v. Benville Gustaffe (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “Similar to the common law pronouncement, the purpose of the statute is to “‘ensure[ ] that individuals who form strong parent-child bonds with children with the consent and encouragement of the child’s legal parent are not excluded from a determination of parentage simply…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(2) — 2 cases
Jamie Lee Ponsaran v. Lyndsey Anker (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “26A RCW, requires the trial court to make an initial determination of whether the petition and any response raise “disputed facts material to the issue of standing.”1 We hold today that the proper focuses of that initial determination are whether the petitioner unequivocally…”
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Kyllo & Amanda Kyllo (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Kyllo satisfied all elements of the de facto parenting statute, RCW 26.26A.440, in regards to KMK and that he is her de facto parent.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(3) — 5 cases
In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m., 476 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “To establish standing to maintain a de facto parentage proceeding, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to satisfy seven requirements.”
Lana Walker v. Warren Riley, 498 P.3d 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “ANALYSIS The parties dispute whether Walker has proved facts sufficient to establish standing to bring a de facto parentage action under RCW 26.26A.440. The issues raised in this appeal require us to interpret the statute on de facto parentage.”
Jamie Lee Ponsaran v. Lyndsey Anker (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “26A RCW, requires the trial court to make an initial determination of whether the petition and any response raise “disputed facts material to the issue of standing.”1 We hold today that the proper focuses of that initial determination are whether the petitioner unequivocally…”
Parentage Of A.h., Christian Gruber, V. Melissa Leighanne Headrick, Apppellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Along with raising constitutional challenges to RCW 26.26A.440, the de facto parentage statute, Headrick argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and implementation of the statute.”
R.T.L. v. K.M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The court found that the grandmother had not set forth a prima facie case of de facto parentage under RCW 26.26A.440, and thus she did not have standing to intervene.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(3)(a) — 6 cases
In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m., 476 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “To establish standing to maintain a de facto parentage proceeding, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to satisfy seven requirements.”
Jamie Lee Ponsaran v. Lyndsey Anker (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “26A RCW, requires the trial court to make an initial determination of whether the petition and any response raise “disputed facts material to the issue of standing.”1 We hold today that the proper focuses of that initial determination are whether the petitioner unequivocally…”
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Kyllo & Amanda Kyllo (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Kyllo satisfied all elements of the de facto parenting statute, RCW 26.26A.440, in regards to KMK and that he is her de facto parent.”
Lavenna Cai & Leon Cai v. Benville Gustaffe (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “Similar to the common law pronouncement, the purpose of the statute is to “‘ensure[ ] that individuals who form strong parent-child bonds with children with the consent and encouragement of the child’s legal parent are not excluded from a determination of parentage simply…”
Parentage Of A.h., Christian Gruber, V. Melissa Leighanne Headrick, Apppellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Along with raising constitutional challenges to RCW 26.26A.440, the de facto parentage statute, Headrick argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and implementation of the statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(3)(b) — 5 cases
In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m., 476 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “To establish standing to maintain a de facto parentage proceeding, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to satisfy seven requirements.”
Jamie Lee Ponsaran v. Lyndsey Anker (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “26A RCW, requires the trial court to make an initial determination of whether the petition and any response raise “disputed facts material to the issue of standing.”1 We hold today that the proper focuses of that initial determination are whether the petitioner unequivocally…”
Lavenna Cai & Leon Cai v. Benville Gustaffe (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “Similar to the common law pronouncement, the purpose of the statute is to “‘ensure[ ] that individuals who form strong parent-child bonds with children with the consent and encouragement of the child’s legal parent are not excluded from a determination of parentage simply…”
Parentage Of A.h., Christian Gruber, V. Melissa Leighanne Headrick, Apppellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Along with raising constitutional challenges to RCW 26.26A.440, the de facto parentage statute, Headrick argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and implementation of the statute.”
R.T.L. v. K.M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The court found that the grandmother had not set forth a prima facie case of de facto parentage under RCW 26.26A.440, and thus she did not have standing to intervene.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(3)(c) — 8 cases
In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m., 476 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “To establish standing to maintain a de facto parentage proceeding, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to satisfy seven requirements.”
Jamie Lee Ponsaran v. Lyndsey Anker (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “26A RCW, requires the trial court to make an initial determination of whether the petition and any response raise “disputed facts material to the issue of standing.”1 We hold today that the proper focuses of that initial determination are whether the petitioner unequivocally…”
Lana Walker v. Warren Riley, 498 P.3d 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “ANALYSIS The parties dispute whether Walker has proved facts sufficient to establish standing to bring a de facto parentage action under RCW 26.26A.440. The issues raised in this appeal require us to interpret the statute on de facto parentage.”
In re the Marriage of: Timothy Kyllo & Amanda Kyllo (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Kyllo satisfied all elements of the de facto parenting statute, RCW 26.26A.440, in regards to KMK and that he is her de facto parent.”
Lavenna Cai & Leon Cai v. Benville Gustaffe (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “Similar to the common law pronouncement, the purpose of the statute is to “‘ensure[ ] that individuals who form strong parent-child bonds with children with the consent and encouragement of the child’s legal parent are not excluded from a determination of parentage simply…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(4) — 8 cases
In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m., 476 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “To establish standing to maintain a de facto parentage proceeding, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to satisfy seven requirements.”
Lana Walker v. Warren Riley, 498 P.3d 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “ANALYSIS The parties dispute whether Walker has proved facts sufficient to establish standing to bring a de facto parentage action under RCW 26.26A.440. The issues raised in this appeal require us to interpret the statute on de facto parentage.”
Jamie Lee Ponsaran v. Lyndsey Anker (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “26A RCW, requires the trial court to make an initial determination of whether the petition and any response raise “disputed facts material to the issue of standing.”1 We hold today that the proper focuses of that initial determination are whether the petitioner unequivocally…”
Parentage Of A.h., Christian Gruber, V. Melissa Leighanne Headrick, Apppellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Along with raising constitutional challenges to RCW 26.26A.440, the de facto parentage statute, Headrick argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and implementation of the statute.”
In the Matter of the Parentage & Custody of: T.B.M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 26.26A.440 governs the adjudication of a de facto parentage claim.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(4)(a) — 2 cases
Jamie Lee Ponsaran v. Lyndsey Anker (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “26A RCW, requires the trial court to make an initial determination of whether the petition and any response raise “disputed facts material to the issue of standing.”1 We hold today that the proper focuses of that initial determination are whether the petitioner unequivocally…”
Parentage Of A.h., Christian Gruber, V. Melissa Leighanne Headrick, Apppellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Along with raising constitutional challenges to RCW 26.26A.440, the de facto parentage statute, Headrick argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and implementation of the statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(4)(b) — 1 case
Parentage Of A.h., Christian Gruber, V. Melissa Leighanne Headrick, Apppellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Along with raising constitutional challenges to RCW 26.26A.440, the de facto parentage statute, Headrick argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and implementation of the statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(4)(c) — 4 cases
In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m., 476 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “To establish standing to maintain a de facto parentage proceeding, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to satisfy seven requirements.”
In the Matter of the Parentage of: L.T. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The current method in Washington for establishing de facto parentage is set by RCW 26.26A.440. 2 This statutory process involves two steps.”
R.T.L. v. K.M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The court found that the grandmother had not set forth a prima facie case of de facto parentage under RCW 26.26A.440, and thus she did not have standing to intervene.”
Parentage Of A.h., Christian Gruber, V. Melissa Leighanne Headrick, Apppellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Along with raising constitutional challenges to RCW 26.26A.440, the de facto parentage statute, Headrick argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and implementation of the statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(4)(d) — 2 cases
In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m., 476 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “To establish standing to maintain a de facto parentage proceeding, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to satisfy seven requirements.”
In the Matter of the Parentage of: L.T. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The current method in Washington for establishing de facto parentage is set by RCW 26.26A.440. 2 This statutory process involves two steps.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(4)(e) — 1 case
Parentage Of A.h., Christian Gruber, V. Melissa Leighanne Headrick, Apppellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Along with raising constitutional challenges to RCW 26.26A.440, the de facto parentage statute, Headrick argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and implementation of the statute.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(4)(f) — 4 cases
In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m., 476 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “To establish standing to maintain a de facto parentage proceeding, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to satisfy seven requirements.”
E.N. v. T.R., 474 Md. 346 (Md. 2021). “2020) (noting that “RCW 26.26A.440(4)(f) does not reference the child’s other genetic parent.”
Lana Walker v. Warren Riley, 498 P.3d 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “ANALYSIS The parties dispute whether Walker has proved facts sufficient to establish standing to bring a de facto parentage action under RCW 26.26A.440. The issues raised in this appeal require us to interpret the statute on de facto parentage.”
In the Matter of the Parentage of: L.T. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “The current method in Washington for establishing de facto parentage is set by RCW 26.26A.440. 2 This statutory process involves two steps.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26A.440(4)(g) — 5 cases
In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m., 476 P.3d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “To establish standing to maintain a de facto parentage proceeding, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to satisfy seven requirements.”
Jamie Lee Ponsaran v. Lyndsey Anker (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “26A RCW, requires the trial court to make an initial determination of whether the petition and any response raise “disputed facts material to the issue of standing.”1 We hold today that the proper focuses of that initial determination are whether the petitioner unequivocally…”
In the Matter of the Parentage & Custody of: T.B.M. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 26.26A.440 governs the adjudication of a de facto parentage claim.”
In the Matter of the Custody of: SA-M (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Pinon amended his petition for custody to include a claim under the newly enacted de facto parenting statute, RCW 26.26A.440. This case provides an opportunity to interpret and apply RCW 26.”
Parentage Of A.h., Christian Gruber, V. Melissa Leighanne Headrick, Apppellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Along with raising constitutional challenges to RCW 26.26A.440, the de facto parentage statute, Headrick argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation and implementation of the statute.”
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.