Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.60.010 (2026)

Finding

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Many Washingtonians are in intimate, committed, and exclusive relationships with another person to whom they are not legally married. These relationships are important to the individuals involved and their families; they also benefit the public by providing a private source of mutual support for the financial, physical, and emotional health of those individuals and their families. The public has an interest in providing a legal framework for such mutually supportive relationships, whether the partners are of the same or different sexes, and irrespective of their sexual orientation.
The legislature finds that the public interest would be served by extending rights and benefits to couples in which either or both of the partners are at least sixty-two years of age. While these couples are entitled to marry under the state's marriage statutes, some social security and pension laws nevertheless make it impractical for these couples to marry. For this reason, chapter 156, Laws of 2007 specifically allows couples to enter into a state registered domestic partnership if one of the persons is at least sixty-two years of age, the age at which many people choose to retire and are eligible to begin collecting social security and pension benefits.
The rights granted to state registered domestic partners in chapter 156, Laws of 2007 will further Washington's interest in promoting family relationships and protecting family members during life crises. Chapter 156, Laws of 2007 does not affect marriage or any other ways in which legal rights and responsibilities between two adults may be created, recognized, or given effect in Washington.
[ 2012 c 3 s 8 (Referendum Measure No. 74, approved November 6, 2012); 2007 c 156 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date2012 c 3 ss 8 and 9: "Sections 8 and 9 of this act take effect June 30, 2014, but only if all other provisions of this act are implemented." [ 2012 c 3 s 18 (Referendum Measure No. 74, approved November 6, 2012).]
Notice2012 c 3: See note following RCW 26.04.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2013–2020 · leading case: Holt v. Holt, 315 P.3d 470 (Wash. 2013).
Holt v. Holt, 315 P.3d 470 (Wash. 2013). “” RCW 26.60.010. One can easily imagine a situation that would make it impractical for a 61-year-old to marry, e.”
Franklin v. Johnston, 314 P.3d 373 (Wash. 2013). “6, 2012)) (same sex marriage); RCW 26.60.010 (domestic partnership). We find the suggestion that the existence of a statutory gap is an element the petitioner must meet unavailing, and no adequate statutory remedy has been brought to our attention.”
Scott Patrick Hill v. Andrea Marie Abbott (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “” RCW 26.60.010(6)(b). 5 No. 79124-9-1/6 that Scott’s behavior is escalating, and I fear that he will hurt me again or will follow through with this repeated threats of taking the children from me/out of state.”
In re Custody of A.F.J. (Wash. 2013). “We find the suggestion that the existence of a statutory gap is an element the petitioner must meet unavailing, and no adequate statutory remedy has been brought to our attention. Next, we turn to whether a foster parent should face additional limitations beyond those set forth…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.60.010(6)(b) — 1 case
Scott Patrick Hill v. Andrea Marie Abbott (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “” RCW 26.60.010(6)(b). 5 No. 79124-9-1/6 that Scott’s behavior is escalating, and I fear that he will hurt me again or will follow through with this repeated threats of taking the children from me/out of state.”
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.