Washington's rule on child custody and parenting time turns on a feature the national template does not capture: Washington uses Decision-making (legal) and residential schedule / parenting time (physical) under a parenting plan.. Courts apply best-interests factors under RCW 26.09.187 / .226, including the child’s relationship with each parent, parental capacity, and any history of domestic violence. Mutual decision-making is favored when parents can cooperate; residential schedules follow best interests with limiting factors for domestic violence. The controlling authority is Wash. Rev. Code §§ 26.09.184 to 26.09.260. Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate with the child must follow the Relocation Act (RCW 26.09.405–.560) notice and objection procedures. Modification: A substantial change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting plan (with exceptions for minor adjustments).
Key takeaways
- Best-interests standard: Courts apply best-interests factors under RCW 26.
- Labels used in Washington: Decision-making (legal) and residential schedule / parenting time (physical) under a parenting plan..
- Parenting-time posture: Mutual decision-making is favored when parents can cooperate; residential schedules follow best interests with limiting factors for domestic violence.
- Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate with the child must follow the Relocation Act (RCW 26.
- Modification: A substantial change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting plan (with exceptions for minor adjustments).
- Primary authority: Wash. Rev. Code §§ 26.09.184 to 26.09.260.
Worked example under Washington law
The illustration below uses only rules already stated for Washington. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.
Two parents in Washington disagree about where the child lives during the school week, and one wants to move.
- Use the labels Washington actually uses: Decision-making (legal) and residential schedule / parenting time (physical) under a parenting plan..
- Apply the best-interests factors: Courts apply best-interests factors under RCW 26.09.187 / .226, including the child’s relationship with each parent, parental capacity, and any history of domestic violence.
- Check any parenting presumption: Mutual decision-making is favored when parents can cooperate; residential schedules follow best interests with limiting factors for domestic violence.
- If a move is proposed: A parent seeking to relocate with the child must follow the Relocation Act (RCW 26.09.405–.560) notice and objection procedures. Later changes follow: A substantial change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting plan (with exceptions for minor adjustments).
Parenting plans are mandatory. Mediation is often required unless domestic violence is present. Final decrees adopt a detailed parenting plan under chapter 26.09.
Best-interests factors in Washington
Courts apply best-interests factors under RCW 26.09.187 / .226, including the child’s relationship with each parent, parental capacity, and any history of domestic violence.
Legal custody, physical custody, and parenting time
Decision-making (legal) and residential schedule / parenting time (physical) under a parenting plan.
Mutual decision-making is favored when parents can cooperate; residential schedules follow best interests with limiting factors for domestic violence.
Relocation with a child
A parent seeking to relocate with the child must follow the Relocation Act (RCW 26.09.405–.560) notice and objection procedures.
Modifying a Washington custody order
A substantial change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting plan (with exceptions for minor adjustments).
How custody cases typically move in Washington
Parenting plans are mandatory. Mediation is often required unless domestic violence is present. Final decrees adopt a detailed parenting plan under chapter 26.09.
Related Washington guides
- How to file for divorce in Washington
- Security deposit return in Washington
- DUI penalties in Washington
Case law: custody and parenting time in Washington
In the Matter of the Dependency of A.V.D. Mark VanDam, Appellant, v. the Department of Social and Health Services
…ective Services (CPS) to remove the child from her parents' custody. CPS placed her in the custody of her maternal grandmother. The parties entered into an agreed shelter care order under which V was to remain under the grandmother's care, the parents were permitted liberal supervised visitation, and both parents were ordered to take a parenting class and VanDam an anger manage…
Washington opinions such as In the Matter of the Dependency of A.V.D. Mark VanDam, Appellant, v. the Department of Social and Health Services are cited where child custody is disputed. The court stated: "Services (CPS) to remove the child from her parents' custody. CPS placed her in the custody of her maternal grandmother." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
In Re Parentage of CAMA
In Re Parentage of CAMA, 109 P.3d 405 (2005)
…S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000), and in this court, In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wash.2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 (1998), aff'd on narrower grounds by Troxel, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49. But here we examine a different grandparent visitation statute, RCW 26.09.240. Applying Troxel and Smith we hold this statute is unconstitutional, reverse the Court of Appeals, and rein…
On child custody, In Re Parentage of CAMA speaks to the Washington dispute in this passage: "S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000), and in this court, In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wash.2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 (1998), aff'd on narrower grounds by Troxel, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49. But here we examine a different grandparent visitation statute, RCW 26.09.240." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In the Matter of the Parentage of C.A.M.A. Christian E. Appel v. Herlinde Appel
…Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000), and in this court, In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 (1998), aff’d on narrower grounds by Troxel, 530 U.S. 57. But here we examine a different grandparent visitation statute, RCW 26.09.240. Applying Troxel and Smith we hold this statute is unconstitutional, reverse the Court of Appeals, and reinstate the trial court’s decision.…
In the Matter of the Parentage of C.A.M.A. Christian E. Appel v. Herlinde Appel is worth reading on Washington child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000), and in this court, In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 (1998), aff’d on narrower grounds by Troxel, 530 U.S. 57. But here we examine a different grandparent visitation statute, RCW 26.09.240." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
In Re Custody of Shields
In Re Custody of Shields, 136 P.3d 117 (2006)
136 P.3d 117 (2006) 157 Wash.2d 126 In the Matter of the CUSTODY OF SHIELDS, DOB: 11/14/90 Jenny Shields, Respondent, and Susan Harwood, Petitioner. No. 75263-0. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Argued November 15, 2005. Decided June 8, 2006. *118 Gary R. Stenzel, Gary R. Stenzel PS, Spokane, for Petitioner/Appellant. Lee Russell McGuire, Jr., Attorney at Law, Davenport…
On child custody, In Re Custody of Shields speaks to the Washington dispute in this passage: "P.3d 117 (2006) 157 Wash.2d 126 In the Matter of the CUSTODY OF SHIELDS, DOB: 11/14/90 Jenny Shields, Respondent, and Susan Harwood, Petitioner. No. 75263-0. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Argued November 15, 2005. Decided June 8, 2006. *118 Gary R. Stenzel, Gary R." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In the Matter of the Custody of Shields. Jenny Shields v. Susan Harwood
In the Matter of the Custody of Shields. Jenny Shields v. Susan Harwood, 157 Wash. 2d 126 (2006)
…from his mother’s home in 2003 when the trial court awarded custody to his stepmother. Petitioner Susan Harwood (mother) is challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the trial court’s order awarding custody of her son to Respondent Jenny Shields (stepmother). Harwood argues that Shields lacked standing to bring this nonparental custody action, that under chapter 26.1…
On child custody, In the Matter of the Custody of Shields. Jenny Shields v. Susan Harwood speaks to the Washington dispute in this passage: "Petitioner Susan Harwood (mother) is challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the trial court’s order awarding custody of her son to Respondent Jenny Shields (stepmother)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In the Matter of the Parentage of Ashley Marie Schroeder. Douglas James Brester v. Tracy Schroeder Bollenbacher
…enial of his motion to modify a parenting plan to grant him custody of his now 12-year-old daughter, Ashley. Douglas based his motion below on the ground that the child’s mother, Tracy Bollenbacher, had been found in contempt at least twice within the preceding three years for interfering with his visitation rights. The court again found Tracy in contempt, and awarded Douglas $…
In the Matter of the Parentage of Ashley Marie Schroeder. Douglas James Brester v. Tracy Schroeder Bollenbacher is worth reading on Washington child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Ashley. Douglas based his motion below on the ground that the child’s mother, Tracy Bollenbacher, had been found in contempt at least twice within the preceding three years for interfering with his visitation rights." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
In Re Parentage of Schroeder
In Re Parentage of Schroeder, 22 P.3d 1280 (2001)
…enial of his motion to modify a parenting plan to grant him custody of his now 12-year-old daughter, Ashley. Douglas based his motion below on the ground that the child's mother, Tracy Bollenbacher, had been found in contempt at least twice within the preceding three years for interfering with his visitation rights. The court again found Tracy in contempt, and awarded Douglas $…
Washington opinions such as In Re Parentage of Schroeder are cited where child custody is disputed. The court stated: "Ashley. Douglas based his motion below on the ground that the child's mother, Tracy Bollenbacher, had been found in contempt at least twice within the preceding three years for interfering with his visitation rights." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Susan Daves, Et Al, Petitioners, v. Chris Nastos, Respondent
Susan Daves, Et Al, Petitioners, v. Chris Nastos, Respondent, 105 Wash. 2d 24 (1985)
…rnished to the child if that issue is before the court, the custody and guardianship of the child, visitation privileges with the child, the furnishing of bond or other security for the payment of the judgment, or any other matter in the best interest of the child. The judgment and order may direct the father to pay the reasonable expenses of the mother's pregnancy and confinem…
On child custody, Susan Daves, Et Al, Petitioners, v. Chris Nastos, Respondent speaks to the Washington dispute in this passage: "rnished to the child if that issue is before the court, the custody and guardianship of the child, visitation privileges with the child, the furnishing of bond or other security for the payment of the judgment, or any other matter in the best interest of the child. The judgment a" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Frequently asked questions
What does Washington call “custody”?
Decision-making (legal) and residential schedule / parenting time (physical) under a parenting plan.
Can I move out of state with my child?
A parent seeking to relocate with the child must follow the Relocation Act (RCW 26.09.405–.560) notice and objection procedures.
How do I change an existing custody order in Washington?
A substantial change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting plan (with exceptions for minor adjustments).
This guide covers Washington custody law as of 2026. Verify the live statute and any local parenting-time guidelines before relying on this summary.