Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.27
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.051 (2026)

International application of chapter

✓ 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 court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for the purpose of applying Articles 1 and 2.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) or (4) of this section, a child custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this chapter must be recognized and enforced under Article 3.
(3) A court of this state need not apply this chapter if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.
(4) A court of this state need not apply this chapter if the law of a foreign country holds that apostasy, or a sincerely held religious belief or practice, or homosexuality are punishable by death, and a parent or child may be at demonstrable risk of being subject to such laws. For the purposes of this subsection, "apostasy" means the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.
[ 2021 c 23 s 1; 2001 c 65 s 105.]

Notes:

Application—2021 c 23: "This act applies to child custody proceedings or proceedings to enforce a child custody determination pending as of April 14, 2021, or commenced on or after April 14, 2021." [ 2021 c 23 s 2.]
Effective date—2021 c 23: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [April 14, 2021]." [ 2021 c 23 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: Tostado v. Tostado, 151 P.3d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tostado v. Tostado, 151 P.3d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Also, as we discuss below, the factual circumstances surrounding the Mexican dissolution process substantially conformed to the recodified Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act's (UCCJEA) requirements for acknowledging the validity of a foreign jurisdiction's…”
In Re Marriage of Kowalewski, 182 P.3d 959 (Wash. 2008). “See RCW 26.27.051 (foreign countries treated as a state for purposes of UCCJA); RCW 26.”
In re the Marriage of Rostrom, 339 P.3d 185 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 26.27.051. Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No.”
In re the Marriage of Kowalewski, 163 Wash. 2d 542 (Wash. 2008). “See RCW 26.27.051 (foreign countries treated as a state for purposes of UCCJA); RCW 26.”
In re Long, 421 P.3d 989 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “" RCW 26.27.051. RCW 26.27.221. RCW 26.27.201.”
In re the Marriage of Tostado, 137 Wash. App. 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “221, [11] made applicable to the Mexican order by RCW 26.27.051(1), *148 the Washington court would have jurisdiction to modify a custody determination, but the trial court.”
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Bethany Alhaidari & Ghassan Abdulrahman Alhaidari (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 14× “38084-0-III In re Marriage of AlHaidari On April 14, 2021, and after the superior court issued its letter ruling, the Washington Legislature amended RCW 26.27.051 to add a new subsection (4).”
In Re Marriage of Tsarbopoulos, 104 P.3d 692 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 26.27.051(1). Article 1 contains the notice provisions at issue here in RCW 26.”
In re the Marriage of Tsarbopoulos, 125 Wash. App. 273 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 26.27.051(1). Article 1 contains the notice provisions at issue here in RCW 26.”
Michelangelo Borrello v. Chandra Long (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “or a court of this state would be a more convenient forum.”14 (1) [A Washington state court] has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if: (a) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home…”
In Re The Marriage Of: Simon Pedersen v. Lone Pedersen (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “24 RCW 26.27.051. -10- No. 69265-8-1 /11 that no one lives in Washington anymore, the trial court properly decided to decline to further exercise its jurisdiction over matters related to Nora's custody.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Kathryn Rostrom, Resp v. Dale Rostrom, App (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “9 RCW 26.27.051. -5- NO. 71860-6-1/6 Both the United States and Australia signed the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention).”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.051(1) — 4 cases
Tostado v. Tostado, 151 P.3d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Also, as we discuss below, the factual circumstances surrounding the Mexican dissolution process substantially conformed to the recodified Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act's (UCCJEA) requirements for acknowledging the validity of a foreign jurisdiction's…”
In re the Marriage of Tostado, 137 Wash. App. 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “221, [11] made applicable to the Mexican order by RCW 26.27.051(1), *148 the Washington court would have jurisdiction to modify a custody determination, but the trial court.”
In Re Marriage of Tsarbopoulos, 104 P.3d 692 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 26.27.051(1). Article 1 contains the notice provisions at issue here in RCW 26.”
In re the Marriage of Tsarbopoulos, 125 Wash. App. 273 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 26.27.051(1). Article 1 contains the notice provisions at issue here in RCW 26.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.051(2) — 2 cases
Tostado v. Tostado, 151 P.3d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Also, as we discuss below, the factual circumstances surrounding the Mexican dissolution process substantially conformed to the recodified Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act's (UCCJEA) requirements for acknowledging the validity of a foreign jurisdiction's…”
In re the Marriage of Tostado, 137 Wash. App. 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “221, [11] made applicable to the Mexican order by RCW 26.27.051(1), *148 the Washington court would have jurisdiction to modify a custody determination, but the trial court.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.051(3) — 1 case
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Bethany Alhaidari & Ghassan Abdulrahman Alhaidari (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “38084-0-III In re Marriage of AlHaidari On April 14, 2021, and after the superior court issued its letter ruling, the Washington Legislature amended RCW 26.27.051 to add a new subsection (4).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.051(4) — 1 case
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Bethany Alhaidari & Ghassan Abdulrahman Alhaidari (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “38084-0-III In re Marriage of AlHaidari On April 14, 2021, and after the superior court issued its letter ruling, the Washington Legislature amended RCW 26.27.051 to add a new subsection (4).”
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.