RCW 26.09.520: The Eleven Factors and Relocation Presumption

RCW 26.09.520 is the Washington statute that tells a judge how to rule when one parent wants to move with a child and the other objects. It starts with a rebuttable presumption that the relocation will be allowed, and it directs the court to weigh eleven specific factors before deciding. The parent opposing the move carries the burden of overcoming the presumption by showing the detrimental effect of the relocation outweighs the benefit to the child and the relocating parent.¹

The Presumption in Favor of the Move

The statute does not treat a proposed move as a neutral question. It presumes the relocation will go forward, and the parent who wants to move does not have to prove the move is a good idea.¹

The framing of the burden matters. The court is not asked whether the move, viewed alone, is best for the child. It is asked whether the harm of the move outweighs the combined benefit to the child and the relocating parent. A parent who opposes the move only because it makes visitation less convenient will have trouble meeting that standard.

The Eleven Factors the Court Must Weigh

The statute lists eleven factors. No factor outranks another, and the order they appear in the statute carries no weight.¹

The strength, nature, quality, and stability of the child’s relationship with each parent, siblings, and other significant people in the child’s life.
Any prior agreements between the parents about relocation or residential arrangements.
Whether disrupting the child’s contact with the relocating parent would be more harmful than disrupting contact with the objecting parent. This is where the primary caregiver’s role gets direct recognition.
Whether either parent is subject to limitations under RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192, which cover things like domestic violence, child abuse, neglect, or substance abuse that interferes with parenting.²
The reasons each parent is seeking or opposing the relocation and the good faith of each.
The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation or its prevention will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development.
The quality of life, resources, and opportunities available to the child and the relocating parent in the current and proposed locations.
The availability of alternative arrangements to foster and continue the child’s relationship with the non-moving parent.
The alternatives to relocation and whether it is feasible for the other parent to relocate as well.
The financial impact and logistics of the relocation or its prevention.
For a temporary order only: the amount of time before a final decision can be made at trial.

Two of these deserve a closer look. Factor three effectively asks whether the child would be worse off separated from the parent who provides most day-to-day care or from the parent who sees them less. For a parent with majority residential time, this typically weighs in their favor. Factor four means that a history serious enough to trigger restrictions under RCW 26.09.191 becomes part of the relocation analysis, not just the underlying parenting plan.²

What the Court Cannot Give Undue Weight To

RCW 26.09.520 also restricts the analysis. The court cannot give undue weight to the possibility that the relocating parent might move anyway if the child is not permitted to go. It also cannot give undue weight to the possibility that the objecting parent might follow the child to the new location.³

A companion statute, RCW 26.09.530, goes further on one point. It bars the court from admitting any evidence about whether the relocating parent would choose to remain in the current location if the child cannot move.⁴ So under 26.09.520 the court can hear evidence that the objecting parent might also relocate, it just cannot overemphasize it. But the relocating parent’s hypothetical decision to stay behind is off the table entirely. The rule prevents the objecting parent from framing the case as a forced choice between the move and the child.

How This Statute Fits With Notice and Objection Deadlines

The eleven-factor analysis only comes into play once the procedural steps have been followed. A parent who has the majority of the residential time, or substantially equal time, must give written notice of the intended move to every other person with court-ordered residential time or visitation.⁵

Notice must be given at least 60 days before the intended move. If the parent did not know the information in time to give 60 days’ notice and the delay was reasonable, notice must be given within five days of learning the information.⁶ Service is by personal delivery or by any form of mail that requires a return receipt. If the move stays within the same school district, notice can be given by any reasonable means.⁷

A parent who wants to contest the move has 30 days from receipt of the notice to file an objection.⁸ The objection is filed with the court and served on the relocating parent, either by personal delivery or by mail with a return receipt. Service by mail adds a three-day waiting period. The objection takes the form of a petition to modify the parenting plan or another proceeding that gives the court a basis to act.

Miss the 30 days and the relocation is permitted by default. The non-objecting parent gets whatever residential schedule was proposed in the notice, and either parent can obtain an ex parte order modifying the schedule to match. A later petition to modify the parenting plan under RCW 26.09.260 is a different proceeding with a different standard; the move itself will already have been approved.

Temporary Orders Before Trial

Once an objection is filed, a final trial can be months away. RCW 26.09.510 allows the court to issue temporary orders that go either direction.

The court can temporarily block a relocation, or order the child returned if the move has already happened. That is likely when the relocating parent failed to give timely notice and the other parent was substantially harmed, when the move occurred without proper notice or court approval, or when the court finds after a hearing that the relocation is unlikely to be approved at trial.

The court can also temporarily authorize the move while the case is pending. To do so it must find that proper notice was given, or that circumstances justify going forward despite a defect in notice, and that the relocation is likely to be approved at trial. A temporary authorization must include a revised residential schedule.

Moving Without Permission

Relocating without following the notice rules is one of the fastest ways to damage a case. A parent who skips required notice can be held in contempt. Sanctions include being ordered to return the children if the move has already happened, and being required to pay the other parent’s attorney fees and court costs.⁹

The damage is not only procedural. Factor five of RCW 26.09.520 asks about each parent’s reasons and good faith. A judge looking at a parent who moved first and asked permission later has a ready answer on that factor, and it is not a favorable one.

1
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code 26.09.520 – Basis for Determination
2
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code 26.09.191 – Restrictions in Temporary or Permanent Parenting Plans
3
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code 26.09.520 – Basis for Determination
4
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code 26.09.530 – Limitation on Evidence
5
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code 26.09.430 – Notice Requirement
6
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code 26.09.440 – Timing and Service of Notice
7
Washington State Legislature. Washington Code 26.09.450 – Service of Notice Within School District
8
Washington State Courts. Notice of Intent to Move with Children (Relocation)
9
Washington State Courts. Summary of the Law About Moving with Children