USA – WASHINGTON Trends and Developments Contributed by: Stacy Heard, The Law Office of Stacy D. Heard
The Supreme Court’s decision In August 2026, the Supreme Court rejected the approach that treated future residential time under the parenting plan as part of the threshold calculation. The Court held that, for purposes of deciding whether the relocation presumption applies, residential time must be calculated at the time the relocation notice is served. In a parenting plan with different phases, the relevant phase is the one actually in effect when notice is given. That means the court does not look years into the future and average residential time across schedules that have not yet taken effect. The future phase may be part of the parenting plan, but it is not used to determine whether the parents have substantially equal residential time for purposes of the relocation presumption. In Hauk , therefore, the father’s future entitlement to equal residential time could not be used to increase his current residential-time percentage for purposes of the 45% threshold. The Court’s decision effectively separates two ques - tions that can become intertwined. The first is the threshold question: what residential schedule is relevant to determining whether the relocation pre - sumption applies? The second is the broader ques - tion: is the proposed relocation in the child’s best interests? Hauk primarily resolves the first question. Why the timing of notice matters The most practical consequence of Hauk is that the date relocation notice is served becomes particularly important when a parenting plan is phased. Consider a hypothetical parenting plan in which a mother has 57% of the child’s residential time today but the plan provides that the parents will move to a 50:50 schedule two years from now. If the mother serves relocation notice while the 57:43 schedule is in effect, the court does not average the current schedule with the future 50:50 schedule to determine whether the 45% threshold has been met.
Instead, the court starts with the schedule actually in effect when notice is served. This does not mean that a parent can manipulate the process simply by choosing a particular date to give notice. The statute contains rules concerning the resi - dential schedule designated in the court order, devia - tions from that schedule and other circumstances that can affect the calculation. But Hauk makes clear that the relevant residential-time calculation begins with the phase in effect when the relocation notice is served. What parents should look for in a parenting plan The decision makes a careful review of the existing parenting plan essential. Parents considering relocation and attorneys advis - ing them should identify several pieces of information before evaluating the likely application of the reloca - tion presumption: • The current phase of the parenting plan : Determine which schedule is actually in effect on the date of notice. • The number of residential overnights : Calculate each parent’s residential time under that phase. • The date of relocation notice : This is the critical point in time identified by Hauk . • Holiday and school - break provisions : These provi - sions may affect the overall residential-time calcu - lation. • Actual deviations from the written schedule : Determine whether the parents have consistently followed the court-ordered schedule. • Future phases : Identify future changes but do not automatically include them in the threshold calcula - tion. • Conditional provisions : Determine whether a future increase in residential time is automatic or depends on some future event or condition. This analysis should be done before either parent assumes that the relocation presumption does or does not apply.
219 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook