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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.211 (2026)

Exclusive, continuing 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 that has made a child custody determination consistent with RCW 26.27.201 or 26.27.221 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:
(a) A court of this state determines that neither the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or
(b) A court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state.
(2) A court of this state that has made a child custody determination and does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this section may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under RCW 26.27.201.
[ 2001 c 65 s 202.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2023 · leading case: In Re Parentage, Parenting, & Support of Arkk, 174 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Parentage, Parenting, & Support of Arkk, 174 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “RCW 26.27.211. Jurisdiction ceases once the child and parents "do not presently reside in this state.”
Klein v. Kelly, 142 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Klein is correct that temporary orders are child custody determinations under the UCCJEA and can confer exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.211. RCW 26.27.021(3). But a temporary order can confer only temporary jurisdiction, because an expired order has no…”
In Re Custody of AC, 200 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2009). “201(1)(a) or (b) and: (1) The court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.211 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under RCW 26.”
Nagel v. Cork, 165 Wash. 2d 568 (Wash. 2009). “201(l)(a) or (b) and: (1) The court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.211 or that *575 a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under RCW 26.”
Tostado v. Tostado, 151 P.3d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “201(1)(a) or (b) and: (1) The court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.211 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under RCW 26.”
In re the Marriage of Rostrom, 339 P.3d 185 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “8 RCW 26.27.211(1). RCW 26.27.051. Oct. 25, 1980, T.”
Sergio E. Herrera v. Sandra Villaneda, 416 P.3d 733 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “See RCW 26.27.211(1). “Child custody determinations” include parenting plans and other orders providing for visitation with respect to a child.”
In re the Marriage of Tostado, 137 Wash. App. 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “201(l)(a) or (b) and: (1) The court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.211 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under RCW 26.”
In Re The Custody Of N.j.r.s. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “RCW 26.27.211(1); O.R.S. § 109.744(1). In this case, it is undisputed that, at the time of final disposition in Ross and Scott's dissolution, Oregon had jurisdiction to make the initial custody determination as N.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Simon Pedersen v. Lone Pedersen (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “In its November 2011 order on relocation, the court noted that it had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.211, having previously made a child custody determination.”
Rhea J. Rolfe v. Jonathon M. Philpott (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “201(1)(a); RCW 26.27.211(1 )(b); RCW 26.27.221(2). -3- NO.”
Darcie Gilliard & on behalf of minor Child. v. Jacob Alton Leatherman (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). “With an exception not applicable here, a Minnesota district court may not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under section 518D.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.211(1) — 4 cases
Klein v. Kelly, 142 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Klein is correct that temporary orders are child custody determinations under the UCCJEA and can confer exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.211. RCW 26.27.021(3). But a temporary order can confer only temporary jurisdiction, because an expired order has no…”
In re the Marriage of Rostrom, 339 P.3d 185 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “8 RCW 26.27.211(1). RCW 26.27.051. Oct. 25, 1980, T.”
Sergio E. Herrera v. Sandra Villaneda, 416 P.3d 733 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “See RCW 26.27.211(1). “Child custody determinations” include parenting plans and other orders providing for visitation with respect to a child.”
In Re The Custody Of N.j.r.s. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 26.27.211(1); O.R.S. § 109.744(1). In this case, it is undisputed that, at the time of final disposition in Ross and Scott's dissolution, Oregon had jurisdiction to make the initial custody determination as N.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.211(1)(a) — 1 case
In Re The Marriage Of: Kathryn Rostrom, Resp v. Dale Rostrom, App (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.211(1)(b) — 1 case
In Re Parentage, Parenting, & Support of Arkk, 174 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 26.27.211. Jurisdiction ceases once the child and parents "do not presently reside in this state.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.211(2) — 1 case
In Re The Custody Of N.j.r.s. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 26.27.211(1); O.R.S. § 109.744(1). In this case, it is undisputed that, at the time of final disposition in Ross and Scott's dissolution, Oregon had jurisdiction to make the initial custody determination as N.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.211(l)(b) — 1 case
Klein v. Kelly, 142 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Klein is correct that temporary orders are child custody determinations under the UCCJEA and can confer exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.211. RCW 26.27.021(3). But a temporary order can confer only temporary jurisdiction, because an expired order has no…”
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.