Family Law Revised Code of Washington RCW 26.09
Seattle Divorce and Family Law RCW 26.09.070
The current law regarding Property
Settlement Agreements is codified in RCW 26.09.070.
Specifically, that statute states:
(1) The parties to a marriage or a domestic partnership, in order
to promote the amicable settlement of disputes attendant upon their
separation or upon the filing of a petition for dissolution of their
marriage or domestic partnership, a decree of legal separation, or
declaration of invalidity of their marriage or domestic partnership,
may enter into a written separation contract providing for the
maintenance of either of them, the disposition of any property owned
by both or either of them, the parenting plan and support for their
children and for the release of each other from all obligation
except that expressed in the contract.
(2) If the parties to such contract elect to live
separate and apart without any court decree, they may record such
contract and cause notice thereof to be published in a legal
newspaper of the county wherein the parties resided prior to their
separation. Recording such contract and publishing notice of the
making thereof shall constitute notice to all persons of such
separation and of the facts contained in the recorded document.
(3) If either or both of the parties to a separation
contract shall at the time of the execution thereof, or at a
subsequent time, petition the court for dissolution of their
marriage or domestic partnership, for a decree of legal separation,
or for a declaration of invalidity of their marriage or domestic
partnership, the contract, except for those terms providing for a
parenting plan for their children, shall be binding upon the court
unless it finds, after considering the economic circumstances of the
parties and any other relevant evidence produced by the parties on
their own motion or on request of the court, that the separation
contract was unfair at the time of its execution. Child support may
be included in the separation contract and shall be reviewed in the
subsequent proceeding for compliance with RCW
(4) If the court in an action for dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity finds that the separation contract was unfair at the time of its execution, it may make orders for the maintenance of either party, the disposition of their property and the discharge of their obligations.
(5) Unless the separation contract provides to the contrary, the agreement shall be set forth in the decree of dissolution, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity, or filed in the action or made an exhibit and incorporated by reference, except that in all cases the terms of the parenting plan shall be set out in the decree, and the parties shall be ordered to comply with its terms.
(6) Terms of the contract set forth or incorporated by reference in the decree may be enforced by all remedies available for the enforcement of a judgment, including contempt, and are enforceable as contract terms.
(7) When the separation contract so provides, the decree may expressly preclude or limit modification of any provision for maintenance set forth in the decree. Terms of a separation contract pertaining to a parenting plan for the children and, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, terms providing for maintenance set forth or incorporated by reference in the decree are automatically modified by modification of the decree.
(8) If at any time the parties to the separation contract by mutual agreement elect to terminate the separation contract they may do so without formality unless the contract was recorded as in subsection (2) of this section, in which case a statement should be filed terminating the contract.
[2008 c 6 § 1010; 1989 c 375 § 4; 1987 c 460 § 6; 1973 1st ex.s. c 157 § 7.]
Contact a Seattle Divorce Lawyer to discuss the specific application of RCW 26.09.070 as it applies to your case.
Seattle Divorce and Family Law RCW 26.09.002
The policy behind parenting decisions made by the court with respect to the best interests of a child in a family law proceeding is codified in RCW 26.09.002. Specifically, RCW 26.09.002 states:
Parents have the responsibility to make decisions and perform other parental functions necessary for the care and growth of their minor children. In any proceeding between parents under this chapter, the best interests of the child shall be the standard by which the court determines and allocates the parties' parental responsibilities. The state recognizes the fundamental importance of the parent-child relationship to the welfare of the child, and that the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests. Residential time and financial support are equally important components of parenting arrangements. The best interests of the child are served by a parenting arrangement that best maintains a child's emotional growth, health and stability, and physical care. Further, the best interest of the child is ordinarily served when the existing pattern of interaction between a parent and child is altered only to the extent necessitated by the changed relationship of the parents or as required to protect the child from physical, mental, or emotional harm.
[2007 c 496 § 101; 1987 c 460 § 2.]
Contact a Seattle Divorce Lawyer to discuss the specific application of RCW 26.09.002 as it applies to your case.
Seattle Divorce and Family Law RCW 26.09.260
The law regarding modification of parenting plans is codified in RCW 26.09.260. There are only specific situations where the court will modify the parenting plan in a family law proceeding. The court favors custodial continuity. However, if you believe you need to modify your final parenting plan, it is important to understand the law in Washington State. Specifically, modification of parenting plan is codified in RCW 26.09.260 as follows:
(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
(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 to discuss the specific application of RCW 26.09.260 as it applies to your case.
