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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.201 (2026)

Initial child custody jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as otherwise provided in RCW 26.27.231, a court of this state 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 state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state;
(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under (a) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under RCW 26.27.261 or 26.27.271, and:
(i) The child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and
(ii) Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships;
(c) All courts having jurisdiction under (a) of this subsection have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under RCW 26.27.261 or 26.27.271; or
(d) No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in (a), (b), or (c) of this subsection.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state.
(3) Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination.
[ 2001 c 65 s 201.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: In re the Marriage of McDermott, 307 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of McDermott, 307 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 20× “¶37 Where a superior court is not authorized to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 26.27.201, it may nevertheless exercise “temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to…”
Ruff v. Knickerbocker, 275 P.3d 1175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 13× “231, a court of this state 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 state of the child within six months before the commencement of…”
In re the Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 12× “*155 Since Casey did not have a home state, the Washington court’s assumption of jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.201-(l)(b)(i) and (ii) was proper if he and Dena had a significant connection with Washington and if substantial evidence were available in Washington concerning his…”
In Re Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 12× “NOTES [1] In deciding the petition, the superior court commissioner cited to the uniform child custody jurisdiction act (UCCJA). That act was repealed in 2001 by the legislature, which enacted the UCCJEA in its place.”
In Re Custody of AC, 200 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.27.201(1), .221. Under the UCCJEA, a Washington court may modify Montana's initial child custody determination only if either Montana declines jurisdiction or all parties have left that state.”
Nagel v. Cork, 165 Wash. 2d 568 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.27.201(1), .221. Under the UCCJEA, a Washington court may modify Montana’s initial child custody determination only if either Montana declines jurisdiction or all parties have left that state.”
Stewart v. Vulliet, 888 N.E.2d 761 (Ind. 2008). · cites it 4× “; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.27.201 (1)(a) (West 2006).”
In Re Custody of AC, 153 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.27.201. Holly's membership in the Blackfeet *208 Tribe also is not particularly relevant, especially considering that she was not registered when the petition was filed, A.”
Tostado v. Tostado, 151 P.3d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “[10] ¶ 22 RCW 26.27.201 (Initial Child Custody Jurisdiction) now provides: (1) [A] court of this state 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…”
David N. v. Holly Marie C., 137 Wash. App. 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.27.201. Holly’s membership in the Blackfeet Tribe also is not particularly relevant, especially considering that she was not registered when the petition was filed, A.”
In Re Parentage, Parenting, & Support of Arkk, 174 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 26.27.201(1). Once a court properly asserts jurisdiction and makes an initial custody determination, it retains "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination" until the children and parents no longer reside in the state or no longer have a significant connection…”
In re the Marriage of David-Oytan, 288 P.3d 57 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “See RCW 26.27.201(1)(a); Ghebreghiorghis v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.201(1) — 16 cases
In re the Marriage of McDermott, 307 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶37 Where a superior court is not authorized to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 26.27.201, it may nevertheless exercise “temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to…”
In Re Custody of AC, 200 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 26.27.201(1), .221. Under the UCCJEA, a Washington court may modify Montana's initial child custody determination only if either Montana declines jurisdiction or all parties have left that state.”
Nagel v. Cork, 165 Wash. 2d 568 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 26.27.201(1), .221. Under the UCCJEA, a Washington court may modify Montana’s initial child custody determination only if either Montana declines jurisdiction or all parties have left that state.”
In re the Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “*155 Since Casey did not have a home state, the Washington court’s assumption of jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.201-(l)(b)(i) and (ii) was proper if he and Dena had a significant connection with Washington and if substantial evidence were available in Washington concerning his…”
Stewart v. Vulliet, 888 N.E.2d 761 (Ind. 2008). “; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.27.201 (1)(a) (West 2006).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.201(1)(a) — 10 cases
In re the Marriage of McDermott, 307 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶37 Where a superior court is not authorized to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 26.27.201, it may nevertheless exercise “temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to…”
In Re Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “NOTES [1] In deciding the petition, the superior court commissioner cited to the uniform child custody jurisdiction act (UCCJA). That act was repealed in 2001 by the legislature, which enacted the UCCJEA in its place.”
In Re Custody of AC, 200 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 26.27.201(1), .221. Under the UCCJEA, a Washington court may modify Montana's initial child custody determination only if either Montana declines jurisdiction or all parties have left that state.”
Tostado v. Tostado, 151 P.3d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “[10] ¶ 22 RCW 26.27.201 (Initial Child Custody Jurisdiction) now provides: (1) [A] court of this state 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…”
Ruff v. Knickerbocker, 275 P.3d 1175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “231, a court of this state 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 state of the child within six months before the commencement of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.201(1)(b) — 6 cases
In re the Marriage of McDermott, 307 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶37 Where a superior court is not authorized to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 26.27.201, it may nevertheless exercise “temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to…”
In Re Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “NOTES [1] In deciding the petition, the superior court commissioner cited to the uniform child custody jurisdiction act (UCCJA). That act was repealed in 2001 by the legislature, which enacted the UCCJEA in its place.”
In Re Custody of AC, 153 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 26.27.201. Holly's membership in the Blackfeet *208 Tribe also is not particularly relevant, especially considering that she was not registered when the petition was filed, A.”
Guardianship Of C.g. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
Robert W. Parrish, Jr. v. Melissa Parrish aka Alaxandria M. Von Hell (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.201(1)(b)(i) — 2 cases
In Re Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “NOTES [1] In deciding the petition, the superior court commissioner cited to the uniform child custody jurisdiction act (UCCJA). That act was repealed in 2001 by the legislature, which enacted the UCCJEA in its place.”
Guardianship Of C.g. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.201(1)(c) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “NOTES [1] In deciding the petition, the superior court commissioner cited to the uniform child custody jurisdiction act (UCCJA). That act was repealed in 2001 by the legislature, which enacted the UCCJEA in its place.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.201(2) — 5 cases
In re the Marriage of McDermott, 307 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶37 Where a superior court is not authorized to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 26.27.201, it may nevertheless exercise “temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to…”
In Re Custody of AC, 200 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 26.27.201(1), .221. Under the UCCJEA, a Washington court may modify Montana's initial child custody determination only if either Montana declines jurisdiction or all parties have left that state.”
Nagel v. Cork, 165 Wash. 2d 568 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 26.27.201(1), .221. Under the UCCJEA, a Washington court may modify Montana’s initial child custody determination only if either Montana declines jurisdiction or all parties have left that state.”
Guardianship Of C.g. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
Wendy A. Mcdermott, App. v. Justin J. Mcdermott, Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.201(3) — 3 cases
In Re Marriage of Tsarbopoulos, 104 P.3d 692 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
In re the Marriage of Tsarbopoulos, 125 Wash. App. 273 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Lisa Susan Smith v. Chris Jeffrey Raymond (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.201(l)(a) — 4 cases
In re the Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “*155 Since Casey did not have a home state, the Washington court’s assumption of jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.201-(l)(b)(i) and (ii) was proper if he and Dena had a significant connection with Washington and if substantial evidence were available in Washington concerning his…”
Nagel v. Cork, 165 Wash. 2d 568 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 26.27.201(1), .221. Under the UCCJEA, a Washington court may modify Montana’s initial child custody determination only if either Montana declines jurisdiction or all parties have left that state.”
Ruff v. Knickerbocker, 275 P.3d 1175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “231, a court of this state 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 state of the child within six months before the commencement of…”
In re the Marriage of Tostado, 137 Wash. App. 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.201(l)(b) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “*155 Since Casey did not have a home state, the Washington court’s assumption of jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.201-(l)(b)(i) and (ii) was proper if he and Dena had a significant connection with Washington and if substantial evidence were available in Washington concerning his…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.201(l)(c) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “*155 Since Casey did not have a home state, the Washington court’s assumption of jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.201-(l)(b)(i) and (ii) was proper if he and Dena had a significant connection with Washington and if substantial evidence were available in Washington concerning his…”
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.