In Re Marriage of Littlefield

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court, en banc, held that under the Parenting Act of 1987 a trial court entering an initial parenting plan has no authority to order the primary residential parent to live in a particular geographic area to facilitate frequent contact with the other parent, and that a trial court is not bound by parenting plan provisions contained in a prenuptial agreement, which it may consider but may not enforce. It therefore affirmed the designation of the mother, Charissa Littlefield, as primary residential parent, reversed the order compelling her to move back to Washington, and remanded for entry of a residential schedule based on the parties' circumstances as they existed at trial. Justice Sanders concurred in the result but would have rested the decision solely on the absence of the RCW 26.09.187(3)(b) safeguards for frequent alternation, treating the broader no-authority discussion as dicta and arguing the Act retains trial-court power to impose geographic restrictions in a child's best interests.