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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.221 (2026)

Jurisdiction to modify determination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as otherwise provided in RCW 26.27.231, a court of this state 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 RCW 26.27.201(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 26.27.261; or
(2) A court of this state or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state.
[ 2001 c 65 s 203.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2023 · leading case: In Re Custody of AC, 200 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Custody of AC, 200 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 5× “RCW 26.27.221. ¶ 8 The UCCJEA provides, in pertinent part: Except as otherwise provided in RCW 26.”
In re the Marriage of McDermott, 307 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “201 through RCW 26.27.221, *491 then a “child custody determination” made by a court exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction “remains in effect until an order is obtained from a court of a state having jurisdiction under RCW 26.”
Nagel v. Cork, 165 Wash. 2d 568 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.27.221. ¶8 The UCCJEA provides, in pertinent part: Except as otherwise provided in RCW 26.”
Ruff v. Knickerbocker, 275 P.3d 1175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “" RCW 26.27.221,.261, .271. Only once that state declines jurisdiction may the state with temporary emergency jurisdiction then exercise jurisdiction to permanently modify the initial custody order.”
Tostado v. Tostado, 151 P.3d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “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 Long, 421 P.3d 989 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 26.27.221. RCW 26.27.201. RCW 26.27.021(7).”
In re the Marriage of Tostado, 137 Wash. App. 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “¶24 Sergio admits that “[u]nder RCW 26.27.221, [11] made applicable to the Mexican order by RCW 26.”
Wendy A. Mcdermott, App. v. Justin J. Mcdermott, Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “27.221, then a "child custody determination" made by a court exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction "remains in effect until an order is obtained from a court of a state having jurisdiction under RCW 26.”
Brandee Mayton v. Peter Coneway (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “7 RCW 26.27.221. At the time of the June 17 hearing, the Texas court had preference under the UCCJEA and was the court with clear authority to act concerning the parenting plan.”
In the Matter of the Marriage of: Bethany Alhaidari & Ghassan Abdulrahman Alhaidari (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “The second statute, RCW 26.27.221 declares: Except as otherwise provided in RCW 26.”
Rhea J. Rolfe v. Jonathon M. Philpott (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “211(1 )(b); RCW 26.27.221(2). -3- NO. 72228-0-1 / 4 with Wright.”
Michelangelo Borrello v. Chandra Long (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “”16 Here, Long started modification proceedings when she filed a petition for dissolution in Washington 14 RCW 26.27.221. 15 RCW 26.27.201. 16 RCW 26.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.221(1) — 1 case
In Re Custody of AC, 200 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 26.27.221. ¶ 8 The UCCJEA provides, in pertinent part: Except as otherwise provided in RCW 26.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.221(2) — 1 case
Rhea J. Rolfe v. Jonathon M. Philpott (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “211(1 )(b); RCW 26.27.221(2). -3- NO. 72228-0-1 / 4 with Wright.”
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.