|
RCW 26.09.184
Permanent parenting plan.
(1) OBJECTIVES. The objectives of the permanent parenting
plan are to:
(a) Provide for the child's physical care;
(b) Maintain the child's emotional stability;
(c) Provide for the child's changing needs as the child
grows and matures, in a way that minimizes the need for
future modifications to the permanent parenting plan;
(d) Set forth the authority and responsibilities of
each parent with respect to the child, consistent with the
criteria in RCW 26.09.187 and 26.09.191;
(e) Minimize the child's exposure to harmful parental
conflict;
(f) Encourage the parents, where appropriate under RCW
26.09.187 and 26.09.191, to meet their responsibilities to
their minor children through agreements in the permanent
parenting plan, rather than by relying on judicial
intervention; and
(g) To otherwise protect the best interests of the
child consistent with RCW 26.09.002.
(2) CONTENTS OF THE PERMANENT PARENTING PLAN. The
permanent parenting plan shall contain provisions for
resolution of future disputes between the parents,
allocation of decision-making authority, and residential
provisions for the child.
(3) CONSIDERATION IN ESTABLISHING THE PERMANENT
PARENTING PLAN. In establishing a permanent parenting plan,
the court may consider the cultural heritage and religious
beliefs of a child.
(4) DISPUTE RESOLUTION. A process for resolving
disputes, other than court action, shall be provided unless
precluded or limited by RCW 26.09.187 or 26.09.191. A
dispute resolution process may include counseling,
mediation, or arbitration by a specified individual or
agency, or court action. In the dispute resolution process:
(a) Preference shall be given to carrying out the
parenting plan;
(b) The parents shall use the designated process to
resolve disputes relating to implementation of the plan,
except those related to financial support, unless an
emergency exists;
(c) A written record shall be prepared of any agreement
reached in counseling or mediation and of each arbitration
award and shall be provided to each party;
(d) If the court finds that a parent has used or
frustrated the dispute resolution process without good
reason, the court shall award attorneys' fees and financial
sanctions to the prevailing parent;
(e) The parties have the right of review from the
dispute resolution process to the superior court; and
(f) The provisions of (a) through (e) of this
subsection shall be set forth in the decree.
(5) ALLOCATION OF DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY.
(a) The plan shall allocate decision-making authority
to one or both parties regarding the children's education,
health care, and religious upbringing. The parties may
incorporate an agreement related to the care and growth of
the child in these specified areas, or in other areas, into
their plan, consistent with the criteria in RCW 26.09.187
and 26.09.191. Regardless of the allocation of
decision-making in the parenting plan, either parent may
make emergency decisions affecting the health or safety of
the child.
(b) Each parent may make decisions regarding the
day-to-day care and control of the child while the child is
residing with that parent.
(c) When mutual decision making is designated but
cannot be achieved, the parties shall make a good-faith
effort to resolve the issue through the dispute resolution
process.
(6) RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS FOR THE CHILD. The plan
shall include a residential schedule which designates in
which parent's home each minor child shall reside on given
days of the year, including provision for holidays,
birthdays of family members, vacations, and other special
occasions, consistent with the criteria in RCW 26.09.187 and
26.09.191.
(7) PARENTS' OBLIGATION UNAFFECTED. If a parent fails
to comply with a provision of a parenting plan or a child
support order, the other parent's obligations under the
parenting plan or the child support order are not affected.
Failure to comply with a provision in a parenting plan or a
child support order may result in a finding of contempt of
court, under RCW 26.09.160.
(8) PROVISIONS TO BE SET FORTH IN PERMANENT PARENTING
PLAN. The permanent parenting plan shall set forth the
provisions of subsections (4)(a) through (c), (5)(b) and
(c), and (7) of this section.
[2007 c 496 § 601; 1991 c 367 § 7; 1989 c 375 § 9; 1987 c
460 § 8.]
Contact a Seattle Divorce Lawyer
at TLC to discuss the specific application of RCW 26.09.184 as it applies to your parenting plan.
The current law regarding parenting
plans is codified in RCW 26.09.187. Specifically, that
statute states:
|
|
RCW 26.09.187
Criteria for establishing permanent parenting plan.
(1) DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS. The court shall not order a
dispute resolution process, except court action, when it
finds that any limiting factor under RCW 26.09.191 applies,
or when it finds that either parent is unable to afford the
cost of the proposed dispute resolution process. If a
dispute resolution process is not precluded or limited, then
in designating such a process the court shall consider all
relevant factors, including:
(a) Differences between the parents that would
substantially inhibit their effective participation in any
designated process;
(b) The parents' wishes or agreements and, if the
parents have entered into agreements, whether the agreements
were made knowingly and voluntarily; and
(c) Differences in the parents' financial circumstances
that may affect their ability to participate fully in a
given dispute resolution process.
(2) ALLOCATION OF DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY.
(a) AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. The court shall
approve agreements of the parties allocating decision-making
authority, or specifying rules in the areas listed in RCW
26.09.184(5)(a), when it finds that:
(i) The agreement is consistent with any limitations on
a parent's decision-making authority mandated by RCW
26.09.191; and
(ii) The agreement is knowing and voluntary.
(b) SOLE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. The court shall
order sole decision-making to one parent when it finds that:
(i) A limitation on the other parent's decision-making
authority is mandated by RCW 26.09.191;
(ii) Both parents are opposed to mutual decision
making;
(iii) One parent is opposed to mutual decision making,
and such opposition is reasonable based on the criteria in
(c) of this subsection.
(c) MUTUAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. Except as
provided in (a) and (b) of this subsection, the court shall
consider the following criteria in allocating
decision-making authority:
(i) The existence of a limitation under RCW 26.09.191;
(ii) The history of participation of each parent in
decision making in each of the areas in RCW 26.09.184(5)(a);
(iii) Whether the parents have a demonstrated ability
and desire to cooperate with one another in decision making
in each of the areas in RCW 26.09.184(5)(a); and
(iv) The parents' geographic proximity to one another,
to the extent that it affects their ability to make timely
mutual decisions.
(3) RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS.
(a) The court shall make residential provisions for
each child which encourage each parent to maintain a loving,
stable, and nurturing relationship with the child,
consistent with the child's developmental level and the
family's social and economic circumstances. The child's
residential schedule shall be consistent with RCW 26.09.191.
Where the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 are not dispositive
of the child's residential schedule, the court shall
consider the following factors:
(i) The relative strength, nature, and stability of the
child's relationship with each parent;
(ii) The agreements of the parties, provided they were
entered into knowingly and voluntarily;
(iii) Each parent's past and potential for future
performance of parenting functions as defined in *RCW
26.09.004(3), including whether a parent has taken greater
responsibility for performing parenting functions relating
to the daily needs of the child;
(iv) The emotional needs and developmental level of the
child;
(v) The child's relationship with siblings and with
other significant adults, as well as the child's involvement
with his or her physical surroundings, school, or other
significant activities;
(vi) The wishes of the parents and the wishes of a
child who is sufficiently mature to express reasoned and
independent preferences as to his or her residential
schedule; and
(vii) Each parent's employment schedule, and shall make
accommodations consistent with those schedules.
Factor (i) shall be given the greatest weight.
(b) Where the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 are not
dispositive, the court may order that a child frequently
alternate his or her residence between the households of the
parents for brief and substantially equal intervals of time
if such provision is in the best interests of the child. In
determining whether such an arrangement is in the best
interests of the child, the court may consider the parties
geographic proximity to the extent necessary to ensure the
ability to share performance of the parenting functions.
(c) For any child, residential provisions may contain
any reasonable terms or conditions that facilitate the
orderly and meaningful exercise of residential time by a
parent, including but not limited to requirements of
reasonable notice when residential time will not occur.
[2007 c 496 § 603; 1989 c 375 § 10; 1987 c 460 § 9.]
Contact
a Seattle Divorce Lawyer at TLC to discuss the specific
application of RCW 26.09.187 as it
applies to your parenting plan.
The
current law regarding parenting plans is codified in RCW
26.09.191. Specifically, that statute states:
|
|
RCW
26.09.191
Restrictions in temporary or permanent parenting plans.
(1) The permanent parenting plan shall
not require mutual decision-making or designation of a
dispute resolution process other than court action if it is
found that a parent has engaged in any of the following
conduct: (a) Willful abandonment that continues for an
extended period of time or substantial refusal to perform
parenting functions; (b) physical, sexual, or a pattern of
emotional abuse of a child; or (c) a history of acts of
domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010(1) or an
assault or sexual assault which causes grievous bodily harm
or the fear of such harm.
(2)(a) The parent's residential time with the child
shall be limited if it is found that the parent has engaged
in any of the following conduct: (i) Willful abandonment
that continues for an extended period of time or substantial
refusal to perform parenting functions; (ii) physical,
sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; (iii) a
history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW
26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault which causes
grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm; or (iv) the
parent has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense
under:
(A) RCW 9A.44.076 if, because of the difference in age
between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable
presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
(B) RCW 9A.44.079 if, because of the difference in age
between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable
presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
(C) RCW 9A.44.086 if, because of the difference in age
between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable
presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
(D) RCW 9A.44.089;
(E) RCW 9A.44.093;
(F) RCW 9A.44.096;
(G) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2) if, because of the
difference in age between the offender and the victim, no
rebuttable presumption exists under (d) of this subsection;
(H) Chapter 9.68A RCW;
(I) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the
offenses listed in (a)(iv)(A) through (H) of this
subsection;
(J) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that
describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in
(a)(iv)(A) through (H) of this subsection.
This subsection (2)(a) shall not apply when (c) or (d)
of this subsection applies.
(b) The parent's residential time with the child shall
be limited if it is found that the parent resides with a
person who has engaged in any of the following conduct: (i)
Physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a
child; (ii) a history of acts of domestic violence as
defined in RCW 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault
that causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm;
or (iii) the person has been convicted as an adult or as a
juvenile has been adjudicated of a sex offense under:
(A) RCW 9A.44.076 if, because of the difference in age
between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable
presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
(B) RCW 9A.44.079 if, because of the difference in age
between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable
presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
(C) RCW 9A.44.086 if, because of the difference in age
between the offender and the victim, no rebuttable
presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
(D) RCW 9A.44.089;
(E) RCW 9A.44.093;
(F) RCW 9A.44.096;
(G) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2) if, because of the
difference in age between the offender and the victim, no
rebuttable presumption exists under (e) of this subsection;
(H) Chapter 9.68A RCW;
(I) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the
offenses listed in (b)(iii)(A) through (H) of this
subsection;
(J) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that
describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in
(b)(iii)(A) through (H) of this subsection.
This subsection (2)(b) shall not apply
when (c) or (e) of this subsection applies.
(c) If a parent has been found to be a sexual predator
under chapter 71.09 RCW or under an analogous statute of any
other jurisdiction, the court shall restrain the parent from
contact with a child that would otherwise be allowed under
this chapter. If a parent resides with an adult or a
juvenile who has been found to be a sexual predator under
chapter 71.09 RCW or under an analogous statute of any other
jurisdiction, the court shall restrain the parent from
contact with the parent's child except contact that occurs
outside that person's presence.
(d) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who
has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense listed in
(d)(i) through (ix) of this subsection poses a present
danger to a child. Unless the parent rebuts this
presumption, the court shall restrain the parent from
contact with a child that would otherwise be allowed under
this chapter:
(i) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2), provided that the person
convicted was at least five years older than the other
person;
(ii) RCW 9A.44.073;
(iii) RCW 9A.44.076, provided that the person convicted
was at least eight years older than the victim;
(iv) RCW 9A.44.079, provided that the person convicted
was at least eight years older than the victim;
(v) RCW 9A.44.083;
(vi) RCW 9A.44.086, provided that the person convicted
was at least eight years older than the victim;
(vii) RCW 9A.44.100;
(viii) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the
offenses listed in (d)(i) through (vii) of this subsection;
(ix) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that
describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in
(d)(i) through (vii) of this subsection.
(e) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who
resides with a person who, as an adult, has been convicted,
or as a juvenile has been adjudicated, of the sex offenses
listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection places a
child at risk of abuse or harm when that parent exercises
residential time in the presence of the convicted or
adjudicated person. Unless the parent rebuts the
presumption, the court shall restrain the parent from
contact with the parent's child except for contact that
occurs outside of the convicted or adjudicated person's
presence:
(i) RCW 9A.64.020 (1) or (2), provided that the person
convicted was at least five years older than the other
person;
(ii) RCW 9A.44.073;
(iii) RCW 9A.44.076, provided that the person convicted
was at least eight years older than the victim;
(iv) RCW 9A.44.079, provided that the person convicted
was at least eight years older than the victim;
(v) RCW 9A.44.083;
(vi) RCW 9A.44.086, provided that the person convicted
was at least eight years older than the victim;
(vii) RCW 9A.44.100;
(viii) Any predecessor or antecedent statute for the
offenses listed in (e)(i) through (vii) of this subsection;
(ix) Any statute from any other jurisdiction that
describes an offense analogous to the offenses listed in
(e)(i) through (vii) of this subsection.
(f) The presumption established in (d) of this
subsection may be rebutted only after a written finding
that:
(i) If the child was not the victim of the sex offense
committed by the parent requesting residential time, (A)
contact between the child and the offending parent is
appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, and (B) the
offending parent has successfully engaged in treatment for
sex offenders or is engaged in and making progress in such
treatment, if any was ordered by a court, and the treatment
provider believes such contact is appropriate and poses
minimal risk to the child; or
(ii) If the child was the victim of the sex offense
committed by the parent requesting residential time, (A)
contact between the child and the offending parent is
appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, (B) if the
child is in or has been in therapy for victims of sexual
abuse, the child's counselor believes such contact between
the child and the offending parent is in the child's best
interest, and (C) the offending parent has successfully
engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is engaged in and
making progress in such treatment, if any was ordered by a
court, and the treatment provider believes such contact is
appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child.
(g) The presumption established in (e) of this
subsection may be rebutted only after a written finding
that:
(i) If the child was not the victim of the sex offense
committed by the person who is residing with the parent
requesting residential time, (A) contact between the child
and the parent residing with the convicted or adjudicated
person is appropriate and that parent is able to protect the
child in the presence of the convicted or adjudicated
person, and (B) the convicted or adjudicated person has
successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is
engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was
ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes such
contact is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child;
or
(ii) If the child was the victim of the sex offense
committed by the person who is residing with the parent
requesting residential time, (A) contact between the child
and the parent in the presence of the convicted or
adjudicated person is appropriate and poses minimal risk to
the child, (B) if the child is in or has been in therapy for
victims of sexual abuse, the child's counselor believes such
contact between the child and the parent residing with the
convicted or adjudicated person in the presence of the
convicted or adjudicated person is in the child's best
interest, and (C) the convicted or adjudicated person has
successfully engaged in treatment for sex offenders or is
engaged in and making progress in such treatment, if any was
ordered by a court, and the treatment provider believes
contact between the parent and child in the presence of the
convicted or adjudicated person is appropriate and poses
minimal risk to the child.
(h) If the court finds that the parent has met the
burden of rebutting the presumption under (f) of this
subsection, the court may allow a parent who has been
convicted as an adult of a sex offense listed in (d)(i)
through (ix) of this subsection to have residential time
with the child supervised by a neutral and independent adult
and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of such
residential time. The court shall not approve of a
supervisor for contact between the child and the parent
unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the
supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child
from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the
supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the
supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer
willing or capable of protecting the child.
(i) If the court finds that the parent has met the
burden of rebutting the presumption under (g) of this
subsection, the court may allow a parent residing with a
person who has been adjudicated as a juvenile of a sex
offense listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection to
have residential time with the child in the presence of the
person adjudicated as a juvenile, supervised by a neutral
and independent adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for
supervision of such residential time. The court shall not
approve of a supervisor for contact between the child and
the parent unless the court finds, based on the evidence,
that the supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the
child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of
the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the
supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer
willing or capable of protecting the child.
(j) If the court finds that the parent has met the
burden of rebutting the presumption under (g) of this
subsection, the court may allow a parent residing with a
person who, as an adult, has been convicted of a sex offense
listed in (e)(i) through (ix) of this subsection to have
residential time with the child in the presence of the
convicted person supervised by a neutral and independent
adult and pursuant to an adequate plan for supervision of
such residential time. The court shall not approve of a
supervisor for contact between the child and the parent
unless the court finds, based on the evidence, that the
supervisor is willing and capable of protecting the child
from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of the
supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the
supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer
willing or capable of protecting the child.
(k) A court shall not order unsupervised contact
between the offending parent and a child of the offending
parent who was sexually abused by that parent. A court may
order unsupervised contact between the offending parent and
a child who was not sexually abused by the parent after the
presumption under (d) of this subsection has been rebutted
and supervised residential time has occurred for at least
two years with no further arrests or convictions of sex
offenses involving children under chapter 9A.44 RCW, RCW
9A.64.020, or chapter 9.68A RCW and (i) the sex offense of
the offending parent was not committed against a child of
the offending parent, and (ii) the court finds that
unsupervised contact between the child and the offending
parent is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child,
after consideration of the testimony of a state-certified
therapist, mental health counselor, or social worker with
expertise in treating child sexual abuse victims who has
supervised at least one period of residential time between
the parent and the child, and after consideration of
evidence of the offending parent's compliance with community
supervision requirements, if any. If the offending parent
was not ordered by a court to participate in treatment for
sex offenders, then the parent shall obtain a psychosexual
evaluation conducted by a certified sex offender treatment
provider or a certified affiliate sex offender treatment
provider indicating that the offender has the lowest
likelihood of risk to reoffend before the court grants
unsupervised contact between the parent and a child.
(l) A court may order unsupervised contact between the
parent and a child which may occur in the presence of a
juvenile adjudicated of a sex offense listed in (e)(i)
through (ix) of this subsection who resides with the parent
after the presumption under (e) of this subsection has been
rebutted and supervised residential time has occurred for at
least two years during which time the adjudicated juvenile
has had no further arrests, adjudications, or convictions of
sex offenses involving children under chapter 9A.44 RCW, RCW
9A.64.020, or chapter 9.68A RCW, and (i) the court finds
that unsupervised contact between the child and the parent
that may occur in the presence of the adjudicated juvenile
is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child, after
consideration of the testimony of a state-certified
therapist, mental health counselor, or social worker with
expertise in treatment of child sexual abuse victims who has
supervised at least one period of residential time between
the parent and the child in the presence of the adjudicated
juvenile, and after consideration of evidence of the
adjudicated juvenile's compliance with community supervision
or parole requirements, if any. If the adjudicated juvenile
was not ordered by a court to participate in treatment for
sex offenders, then the adjudicated juvenile shall obtain a
psychosexual evaluation conducted by a certified sex
offender treatment provider or a certified affiliate sex
offender treatment provider indicating that the adjudicated
juvenile has the lowest likelihood of risk to reoffend
before the court grants unsupervised contact between the
parent and a child which may occur in the presence of the
adjudicated juvenile who is residing with the parent.
(m)(i) The limitations imposed by the court under (a)
or (b) of this subsection shall be reasonably calculated to
protect the child from the physical, sexual, or emotional
abuse or harm that could result if the child has contact
with the parent requesting residential time. The limitations
shall also be reasonably calculated to provide for the
safety of the parent who may be at risk of physical, sexual,
or emotional abuse or harm that could result if the parent
has contact with the parent requesting residential time. The
limitations the court may impose include, but are not
limited to: Supervised contact between the child and the
parent or completion of relevant counseling or treatment. If
the court expressly finds based on the evidence that
limitations on the residential time with the child will not
adequately protect the child from the harm or abuse that
could result if the child has contact with the parent
requesting residential time, the court shall restrain the
parent requesting residential time from all contact with the
child.
(ii) The court shall not enter an order under (a) of
this subsection allowing a parent to have contact with a
child if the parent has been found by clear and convincing
evidence in a civil action or by a preponderance of the
evidence in a dependency action to have sexually abused the
child, except upon recommendation by an evaluator or
therapist for the child that the child is ready for contact
with the parent and will not be harmed by the contact. The
court shall not enter an order allowing a parent to have
contact with the child in the offender's presence if the
parent resides with a person who has been found by clear and
convincing evidence in a civil action or by a preponderance
of the evidence in a dependency action to have sexually
abused a child, unless the court finds that the parent
accepts that the person engaged in the harmful conduct and
the parent is willing to and capable of protecting the child
from harm from the person.
(iii) If the court limits residential time under (a) or
(b) of this subsection to require supervised contact between
the child and the parent, the court shall not approve of a
supervisor for contact between a child and a parent who has
engaged in physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse
of the child unless the court finds based upon the evidence
that the supervisor accepts that the harmful conduct
occurred and is willing to and capable of protecting the
child from harm. The court shall revoke court approval of
the supervisor upon finding, based on the evidence, that the
supervisor has failed to protect the child or is no longer
willing to or capable of protecting the child.
(n) If the court expressly finds based on the evidence
that contact between the parent and the child will not cause
physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm to the child
and that the probability that the parent's or other person's
harmful or abusive conduct will recur is so remote that it
would not be in the child's best interests to apply the
limitations of (a), (b), and (m)(i) and (iii) of this
subsection, or if the court expressly finds that the
parent's conduct did not have an impact on the child, then
the court need not apply the limitations of (a), (b), and
(m)(i) and (iii) of this subsection. The weight given to the
existence of a protection order issued under chapter 26.50
RCW as to domestic violence is within the discretion of the
court. This subsection shall not apply when (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m)(ii) of this
subsection apply.
(3) A parent's involvement or conduct may have an
adverse effect on the child's best interests, and the court
may preclude or limit any provisions of the parenting plan,
if any of the following factors exist:
(a) A parent's neglect or substantial nonperformance of
parenting functions;
(b) A long-term emotional or physical impairment which
interferes with the parent's performance of parenting
functions as defined in RCW 26.09.004;
(c) A long-term impairment resulting from drug,
alcohol, or other substance abuse that interferes with the
performance of parenting functions;
(d) The absence or substantial impairment of emotional
ties between the parent and the child;
(e) The abusive use of conflict by the parent which
creates the danger of serious damage to the child's
psychological development;
(f) A parent has withheld from the other parent access
to the child for a protracted period without good cause; or
(g) Such other factors or conduct as the court
expressly finds adverse to the best interests of the child.
(4) In cases involving allegations of limiting factors
under subsection (2)(a)(ii) and (iii) of this section, both
parties shall be screened to determine the appropriateness
of a comprehensive assessment regarding the impact of the
limiting factor on the child and the parties.
(5) In entering a permanent parenting plan, the court
shall not draw any presumptions from the provisions of the
temporary parenting plan.
(6) In determining whether any of the conduct described
in this section has occurred, the court shall apply the
civil rules of evidence, proof, and procedure.
(7) For the purposes of this section, a parent's child
means that parent's natural child, adopted child, or
stepchild.
[2007 c 496 § 303; 2004 c 38 § 12; 1996 c 303 § 1; 1994 c
267 § 1. Prior: 1989 c 375 § 11; 1989 c 326 § 1; 1987 c 460
§ 10.]
Contact a Seattle Divorce Lawyer at TLC
to discuss the specific application of RCW 26.09.191 as it
applies to your parenting plan.
The current law regarding parenting
plans is codified in RCW 26.09.194. Specifically, that
statute states:
|
|
The current
law regarding parenting plans is codified in RCW 26.09.260.
Specifically, that statute states:
RCW
26.09.260
Modification of parenting plan or custody decree.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in
subsections (4), (5), (6), (8), and (10) of this section,
the court shall not modify a prior custody decree or a
parenting plan unless it finds, upon the basis of facts that
have arisen since the prior decree or plan or that were
unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree or
plan, that a substantial change has occurred in the
circumstances of the child or the nonmoving party and that
the modification is in the best interest of the child and is
necessary to serve the best interests of the child. The
effect of a parent's military duties potentially impacting
parenting functions shall not, by itself, be a substantial
change of circumstances justifying a permanent modification
of a prior decree or plan.
(2) In applying these standards, the court shall retain
the residential schedule established by the decree or
parenting plan unless:
(a) The parents agree to the modification;
(b) The child has been integrated into the family of
the petitioner with the consent of the other parent in
substantial deviation from the parenting plan;
(c) The child's present environment is detrimental to
the child's physical, mental, or emotional health and the
harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is
outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child; or
(d) The court has found the nonmoving parent in
contempt of court at least twice within three years because
the parent failed to comply with the residential time
provisions in the court-ordered parenting plan, or the
parent has been convicted of custodial interference in the
first or second degree under RCW 9A.40.060 or 9A.40.070.
(3) A conviction of custodial interference in the first
or second degree under RCW 9A.40.060 or 9A.40.070 shall
constitute a substantial change of circumstances for the
purposes of this section.
(4) The court may reduce or restrict contact between
the child and the parent with whom the child does not reside
a majority of the time if it finds that the reduction or
restriction would serve and protect the best interests of
the child using the criteria in RCW 26.09.191.
(5) The court may order adjustments to the residential
aspects of a parenting plan upon a showing of a substantial
change in circumstances of either parent or of the child,
and without consideration of the factors set forth in
subsection (2) of this section, if the proposed modification
is only a minor modification in the residential schedule
that does not change the residence the child is scheduled to
reside in the majority of the time and:
(a) Does not exceed twenty-four full days in a calendar
year; or
(b) Is based on a change of residence of the parent
with whom the child does not reside the majority of the time
or an involuntary change in work schedule by a parent which
makes the residential schedule in the parenting plan
impractical to follow; or
(c) Does not result in a schedule that exceeds ninety
overnights per year in total, if the court finds that, at
the time the petition for modification is filed, the decree
of dissolution or parenting plan does not provide reasonable
time with the parent with whom the child does not reside a
majority of the time, and further, the court finds that it
is in the best interests of the child to increase
residential time with the parent in excess of the
residential time period in (a) of this subsection. However,
any motion under this subsection (5)(c) is subject to the
factors established in subsection (2) of this section if the
party bringing the petition has previously been granted a
modification under this same subsection within twenty-four
months of the current motion. Relief granted under this
section shall not be the sole basis for adjusting or
modifying child support.
(6) The court may order adjustments to the residential
aspects of a parenting plan pursuant to a proceeding to
permit or restrain a relocation of the child. The person
objecting to the relocation of the child or the relocating
person's proposed revised residential schedule may file a
petition to modify the parenting plan, including a change of
the residence in which the child resides the majority of the
time, without a showing of adequate cause other than the
proposed relocation itself. A hearing to determine adequate
cause for modification shall not be required so long as the
request for relocation of the child is being pursued. In
making a determination of a modification pursuant to
relocation of the child, the court shall first determine
whether to permit or restrain the relocation of the child
using the procedures and standards provided in RCW 26.09.405
through 26.09.560. Following that determination, the court
shall determine what modification pursuant to relocation
should be made, if any, to the parenting plan or custody
order or visitation order.
(7) A parent with whom the child does not reside a
majority of the time and whose residential time with the
child is subject to limitations pursuant to RCW 26.09.191
(2) or (3) may not seek expansion of residential time under
subsection (5)(c) of this section unless that parent
demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances
specifically related to the basis for the limitation.
(8)(a) If a parent with whom the child does not reside
a majority of the time voluntarily fails to exercise
residential time for an extended period, that is, one year
or longer, the court upon proper motion may make adjustments
to the parenting plan in keeping with the best interests of
the minor child.
(b) For the purposes of determining whether the parent
has failed to exercise residential time for one year or
longer, the court may not count any time periods during
which the parent did not exercise residential time due to
the effect of the parent's military duties potentially
impacting parenting functions.
(9) A parent with whom the child does not reside a
majority of the time who is required by the existing
parenting plan to complete evaluations, treatment,
parenting, or other classes may not seek expansion of
residential time under subsection (5)(c) of this section
unless that parent has fully complied with such
requirements.
(10) The court may order adjustments to any of the
nonresidential aspects of a parenting plan upon a showing of
a substantial change of circumstances of either parent or of
a child, and the adjustment is in the best interest of the
child. Adjustments ordered under this section may be made
without consideration of the factors set forth in subsection
(2) of this section.
(11) If the parent with whom the child resides a
majority of the time receives temporary duty, deployment,
activation, or mobilization orders from the military that
involve moving a substantial distance away from the parent's
residence or otherwise would have a material effect on the
parent's ability to exercise parenting functions and primary
placement responsibilities, then:
(a) Any temporary custody order for the child during
the parent's absence shall end no later than ten days after
the returning parent provides notice to the temporary
custodian, but shall not impair the discretion of the court
to conduct an expedited or emergency hearing for resolution
of the child's residential placement upon return of the
parent and within ten days of the filing of a motion
alleging an immediate danger of irreparable harm to the
child. If a motion alleging immediate danger has not been
filed, the motion for an order restoring the previous
residential schedule shall be granted; and
(b) The temporary duty, activation, mobilization, or
deployment and the temporary disruption to the child's
schedule shall not be a factor in a determination of change
of circumstances if a motion is filed to transfer
residential placement from the parent who is a military
service member.
(12) If a parent receives military temporary duty,
deployment, activation, or mobilization orders that involve
moving a substantial distance away from the military
parent's residence or otherwise have a material effect on
the military parent's ability to exercise residential time
or visitation rights, at the request of the military parent,
the court may delegate the military parent's residential
time or visitation rights, or a portion thereof, to a
child's family member, including a stepparent, or another
person other than a parent, with a close and substantial
relationship to the minor child for the duration of the
military parent's absence, if delegating residential time or
visitation rights is in the child's best interest. The court
may not permit the delegation of residential time or
visitation rights to a person who would be subject to
limitations on residential time under RCW 26.09.191. The
parties shall attempt to resolve disputes regarding
delegation of residential time or visitation rights through
the dispute resolution process specified in their parenting
plan, unless excused by the court for good cause shown. Such
a court-ordered temporary delegation of a military parent's
residential time or visitation rights does not create
separate rights to residential time or visitation for a
person other than a parent.
(13) If the court finds that a motion to modify a prior
decree or parenting plan has been brought in bad faith, the
court shall assess the attorney's fees and court costs of
the nonmoving parent against the moving party.
[2009 c 502 § 3; 2000 c 21 § 19; 1999 c 174 § 1; 1991 c 367
§ 9. Prior: 1989 c 375 § 14; 1989 c 318 § 3; 1987 c 460 §
19; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 § 26.]
Contact a
Seattle Divorce Lawyer at TLC to discuss the specific
application of RCW 26.09.260 as it applies to your parenting
plan.
|
