RCW 26.09.191: Parenting Plan Restrictions in Washington

RCW 26.09.191 is the Washington statute that requires family courts to restrict a parent’s residential time and decision-making authority in a parenting plan when that parent has a history of domestic violence, child abuse, or certain other harmful conduct, and that gives judges discretion to impose limits for a second list of behaviors. The legislature rewrote large parts of the statute in 2025, adding new definitions, a presumption that supervised visits be conducted by a professional, and a rebuttable presumption that the safe parent holds sole decision-making authority when domestic violence is found.¹

Conduct That Triggers Mandatory Restrictions

Some findings leave the court no choice. If a judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a parent engaged in any of the following, the parenting plan must limit that parent’s residential time and decision-making role:

Willful abandonment that continued for an extended period, shown through the parent’s words or actions, when the parent was actually able to exercise parenting responsibilities. A parent kept away by incarceration, deportation, a medical emergency, inpatient treatment, flight to a domestic violence shelter, or the other parent withholding the child is not considered to have abandoned the child.
Physical abuse of a child, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child. A single incident of physical abuse can trigger mandatory restrictions; emotional abuse requires a pattern.
A history of domestic violence as defined in RCW 7.105.010, or an assault or sexual assault causing serious bodily harm or a reasonable fear of it.
Sexual abuse of a child, though these cases are now governed primarily by the companion statute RCW 26.09.192.

A criminal conviction is not required. The court applies ordinary civil rules of evidence, and the standard is preponderance: more likely than not.¹

Conduct That May Lead to Discretionary Restrictions

A second category of behavior gives the court authority to impose limits without requiring it to. If the judge finds one of these and concludes the parent’s involvement would harm the child’s best interests, restrictions may follow:

Neglect or a substantial failure to perform parenting functions.
A long-term emotional or physical impairment that interferes with parenting.
A long-term substance abuse problem that interferes with parenting.
Absence of, or a substantial impairment of, the emotional ties between parent and child.
Abusive use of conflict. The 2025 amendments defined this to include repeated bad-faith violations of court orders involving the child, credible threats against the other parent or people supporting them, deliberately involving the child in parental conflict, and abusive litigation as defined in RCW 26.51.020.
Taking, keeping, or hiding the child in violation of a court order.
Withholding access to the child from the other parent for a protracted period without good cause.

The line between the two lists matters. With a mandatory finding, the court must restrict. With a discretionary finding, the court weighs whether the conduct is serious enough to justify a restriction and, if so, what shape it should take.¹

What the Restrictions on Residential Time Look Like

When a mandatory finding is made, the court must impose limits reasonably calculated to protect the child from physical, sexual, or emotional harm, and to protect the safe parent from contact-related harm. The specific tools include:

Supervised visitation, with contact only in the presence of an approved supervisor.
Supervised exchanges, where a third party oversees the handoff even if the visit itself is unsupervised.
Exchanges at a protected setting, such as a supervised visitation center.
Abstention from alcohol or nonprescribed drugs during or before residential time.
Completion of anger management, a substance abuse evaluation and any recommended treatment, or a parenting program.
Any other condition the court finds necessary to keep the child safe.

Judges have broad authority to shape restrictions to the facts. A parent with a domestic violence history might be required to complete a certified perpetrator intervention program; a parent with alcohol-related concerns might need an evaluation and treatment before any unsupervised contact.¹

The Professional Supervision Presumption

One of the more consequential 2025 changes: supervised visitation now carries a presumption of professional supervision. A court can permit a nonprofessional supervisor only if the restricted parent shows two things. First, that a specific proposed supervisor has demonstrated through sworn testimony and evidence that they are capable of protecting the child. Second, that the restricted parent cannot access professional supervision because of geographic isolation or financial hardship, proven through a fee waiver or similar evidence.²

Before any supervised visit, both the restricted parent and the supervisor must sign an acknowledgment that they have read and will follow the court’s written guidelines. That requirement applies whether the supervisor is a professional or a family friend.¹

Emergency Suspension

If a supervised parent repeatedly violates the court order or guidelines, threatens the supervisor or child with physical harm, commits domestic violence, or materially violates a treatment condition tied to the restrictions, the other parent can seek an emergency ex parte order suspending residential time until the court reviews the situation. A missed counseling appointment alone is not enough.¹

How Decision-Making Authority Is Affected

When a mandatory finding is made under RCW 26.09.191, the parenting plan cannot require the parents to share decision-making on major issues such as education, healthcare, and religious upbringing. The court also cannot order alternative dispute resolution processes like mediation or arbitration.¹

Under the 2025 amendments, a finding of domestic violence creates a rebuttable presumption that the safe parent holds sole decision-making authority. The abusive parent bears the burden of overcoming that presumption by clear and convincing evidence that shared decision-making would actually serve the child’s best interests. The court also cannot require face-to-face mediation, arbitration, or any therapeutic intervention that forces both parents into the same physical or virtual space when domestic violence has been found.¹

The Evidence Standard and How Findings Get Made

Both mandatory and discretionary findings use the preponderance of the evidence standard. Testimony, police reports, protection order records, findings from the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, medical records, and witness declarations can all contribute.

Ordinary rules of evidence and civil procedure govern the court’s evaluation of whether the listed conduct occurred, with one exception: parties who have opted for an informal family law trial under state or local court rules follow those modified procedures.¹

Temporary orders early in a case work through the same statute. A parent seeking a temporary parenting plan must file a sworn statement identifying any conduct listed in RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 that poses a serious risk to the child and warrants limiting the other parent’s temporary residential time. The court cannot draw any presumptions from the temporary plan when crafting the final one.³

How a Restricted Parent Can Avoid Limitations

The statute lets a parent avoid restrictions in narrow circumstances, but the bar is deliberately high. The court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that contact will not cause physical, sexual, or emotional harm to the child, and that the chance of the harmful conduct recurring is so remote that applying limitations would not serve the child’s best interests.¹

The court must make written findings on each of the following:

Any current risk the parent poses to the child or the other parent.
Whether the parent has demonstrated a willingness and ability to prioritize the child’s physical and psychological health.
Whether the parent has complied with court orders and is likely to keep doing so.
Whether the parent has genuinely acknowledged the past harm and is committed to avoiding it going forward.
The parent’s compliance with court-ordered treatment, with a critical caveat written into the statute: completion of a treatment program does not, standing alone, prove the parent has made the necessary changes.

That last point trips up parents who assume finishing the required program is the finish line. The judge can conclude the parent attended without internalizing anything the program taught. This exception does not apply to sexual abuse findings, which are governed by RCW 26.09.192.¹

Requesting Restrictions and Backing Them Up

The Parenting Plan form itself, FL All Family 140, contains a restrictions section with checkboxes matching the conduct categories in the statute.⁴ Checking a box is easy. Supporting it is where cases are won or lost.

What tends to carry weight: case numbers from criminal proceedings or protection orders, finding letters from the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, police reports, medical records documenting injuries, and detailed declarations describing specific incidents with dates, witnesses, and any documentation attached. A declaration that says a parent was “abusive throughout the marriage” is much weaker than one describing three dated incidents with corroborating detail.

The 2025 version of the statute also defines and protects “protective actions.” Reporting suspected abuse to law enforcement, medical providers, therapists, schools, or child protective services; seeking court orders adjusting residential time; and petitioning for protection or restraining orders all qualify, and the statute prohibits using these actions against the reporting parent.¹

RCW 26.09.191 governs what goes into a parenting plan when it is first entered. Changing a permanent plan later is a separate proceeding under RCW 26.09.260 with its own substantial-change-in-circumstances threshold, and sexual abuse allegations run through RCW 26.09.192 rather than this statute.

1
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code RCW 26.09.191 – Mandatory and Discretionary Limitations in Parenting Plans
2
Washington State Courts. RCW 26.09.191 and 26.09.192 at 30,000 Feet – An Overview of Recent Changes
3
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code RCW 26.09.194 – Temporary Parenting Plan
4
Washington Courts. FL All Family 140 – Parenting Plan