USA – WASHINGTON Law and Practice Contributed by: Stacy Heard, The Law Office of Stacy D. Heard
2.3.7 Grounds for Opposition to Relocation Washington courts do not give automatic priority to any particular ground for opposing relocation. Under RCW 26.09.520, the statutory factors are not weight - ed, and the court considers the circumstances of each case as a whole. No inference is drawn from the order in which the factors are listed. 2.3.8 Costs of an Application for Relocation Costs are dependent upon many factors, including the amount of time required of counsel to file the application and litigate the issue if the parties do not agree. In high-conflict cases, the court may appoint a Parenting Evaluator. In such cases, costs can exceed USD50,000 including the Parenting Evaluation. If the matter goes to trial, the costs will likely exceed USD120,000. 2.3.9 Time Taken by an Application for Relocation If a party files for a Motion for Temporary Relocation, it would likely take two months to get a decision. If the matter goes to trial, it will likely take more than one year to accommodate time for the Parenting Evalu - ation. 2.3.10 Primary Caregivers Versus Left-Behind Parents Washington law does not generally favour either the primary caregiver or the non-relocating parent. How - ever, where the relocating parent is entitled to the statutory presumption, RCW 26.09.520 provides that the court generally presumes that the relocation will be permitted, subject to rebuttal by the non-relocating parent. This presumption does not apply where the parents have substantially equal residential time. In those cir - cumstances, the court considers the relocation with - out the statutory presumption and applies the factors set out in the Child Relocation Act. In either situation, the court’s decision is based on the child’s best interests and the statutory factors. Therefore, although a primary residential parent may benefit from a rebuttable presumption in some cases, Washington law does not give that parent an auto - matic right to relocate or otherwise favour them over the non-relocating parent.
contact, the distance created by the relocation, and whether meaningful contact can realistically be main - tained through travel, holidays, extended residential time or other arrangements. The court may also con - sider whether relocation by the non-relocating parent is a feasible alternative. Accordingly, a significant loss of contact may weigh against relocation, particularly where the move would substantially disrupt an established and important parent-child relationship. However, the court consid - ers this issue together with all of the statutory relo - cation factors rather than treating loss of contact as determinative. 2.3.6 Which Reasons for Relocation Are Viewed Most Favourably? Washington courts do not assign a predetermined pri - ority to particular reasons for relocation. Under RCW 26.09.520, the statutory factors are not weighted, and the court considers the reasons of both the relocating parent and the parent opposing the move, including whether each is acting in good faith. However, where the relocation is motivated by domes - tic violence or a credible threat of violence, Washing - ton law gives particular attention to the safety of the child and the relocating parent. The Child Relocation Act provides different notice requirements in certain circumstances involving domestic violence or threats of violence. Other legitimate reasons for relocation, such as employment, housing, family support or improved opportunities for the child, may also be considered. The court will assess the specific circumstances of the proposed move, its likely impact on the child, and whether arrangements can be made to maintain the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent. Ultimately, no particular reason guarantees that relo - cation will be permitted. If the non-relocating parent objects, the court will consider the statutory factors and determine whether the relocation should be allowed and, where appropriate, whether the child’s residential arrangements should be modified.
213 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook