USA – WASHINGTON Trends and Developments Contributed by: Stacy Heard, The Law Office of Stacy D. Heard
The difference between the threshold and the merits One of the easiest ways to misunderstand Hauk is to treat the decision as resolving the entire relocation dispute. It does not. The Supreme Court addressed how residential time should be calculated to determine whether the statu - tory presumption applies. It did not hold that a parent with less than 45% of residential time will necessar - ily be permitted to relocate. It also did not hold that a parent with at least 45% will necessarily prevent relocation. Once the applicable statutory framework is estab - lished, the court must still consider the relocation factors identified in Washington law. Those factors require a broader examination of the child’s circum - stances, including relationships with both parents, developmental needs, the quality of life available in each location, the reasons for the move, alternatives to relocation, and the practical consequences of cre - ating greater geographic distance between the child and the non-relocating parent. Thus, Hauk changes the way one threshold question is answered. It does not eliminate the substantive best- interest analysis that follows. Why future residential time can still matter The fact that future residential time is excluded from the threshold calculation does not mean that future circumstances are irrelevant to a relocation case. A court may still need to understand how the child’s relationships and parenting arrangements are likely to develop. A future change in the parenting plan may provide context for understanding the family’s circum - stances and the potential effect of relocation. The distinction is that future residential time cannot be used to establish substantially equal residential time for purposes of the relocation presumption before that future schedule actually takes effect.
That distinction is particularly important for phased parenting plans. A plan may be designed to increase a parent’s residential time gradually as a child becomes older, perhaps because the child’s developmental needs, school schedule or other circumstances are expected to change. Hauk does not invalidate those provisions. It simply prevents future phases from being projected backwards into the present thresh - old calculation. The practical effect on relocating parents For a parent seeking to move, Hauk provides greater clarity about the legal starting point of the case. If the existing parenting plan gives the non-relocating parent less than 45% of residential time, the parent proposing the move can argue that the statutory pre - sumption applies based on the schedule in effect when notice is served. A future phase providing the other parent with additional residential time does not automatically change that calculation. That does not make relocation automatic. The relo - cating parent must still present a persuasive case addressing the statutory factors and explaining why the move is beneficial or necessary and how the child’s relationship with the other parent can be maintained. The decision therefore reinforces the importance of preparing the relocation case in two stages. First, establish the correct residential-time calculation. Sec - ond, prepare the evidence necessary to address the substantive relocation factors. The practical effect on non-relocating parents For a parent opposing relocation, Hauk likewise pro - vides a clearer framework. If the parent has less than 45% of the child’s residen - tial time when notice is served, the parent cannot rely on a future phase of the parenting plan to establish substantially equal residential time for purposes of the presumption. Instead, the parent may need to focus on rebutting the presumption and presenting evidence addressing the statutory factors. The non-relocating parent should therefore examine the existing schedule carefully. If the actual residential
220 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook