USA – WASHINGTON Trends and Developments Contributed by: Stacy Heard, The Law Office of Stacy D. Heard
arrangement differs substantially from the written par - enting plan, the parent should determine whether the circumstances fall within the statutory rules governing deviations from the court-ordered schedule. The broader lesson is that a parent opposing relo - cation should not assume that the percentage cal - culation alone will decide the case. Even where the relocation presumption applies, the statutory factors provide an opportunity to demonstrate the concrete impact the proposed move would have on the child. Hauk does not make the relocation decision automatic The underlying dispute in Hauk illustrates this point. The proposed move to Virginia was supported by considerations including employment opportunities, housing, cost of living and family connections. The trial court nevertheless concluded that relocation was not in the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court’s 2026 decision did not simply order that the mother be permitted to relocate. Instead, it rejected the method used to calculate residential time and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation of the statute. This distinction is important for anyone reading Hauk . The case is not a ruling that economic benefits or fam - ily support automatically justify relocation. Nor is it a ruling that a parent with less than 45% residential time automatically receives permission to move. The decision addresses the legal framework that determines which starting position applies before the court conducts the broader relocation analysis. What Hauk means for phased parenting plans Phased parenting plans are often designed to respond to the changing needs of a child. A young child may have one schedule while an older child may have a dif - ferent schedule that provides greater residential time to the other parent. The Supreme Court’s decision provides a clear answer for the relocation-presumption calculation. The court looks at the phase in effect when notice is served
rather than combining present and future phases into a single calculation. That makes the structure and timing of the parent - ing plan especially important in relocation disputes. A future promise of increased residential time does not become present residential time simply because the parenting plan says it will occur later. A practical checklist for a relocation case Because Hauk concerns a technical statutory thresh - old, parties should establish the basic facts early. A useful preliminary review should include: • What parenting plan is currently in effect? • Which phase of that plan applies on the date relo - cation notice is served? • How many overnights does each parent have under that phase? • Does either parent have at least 45% of the child’s residential time? • Is there evidence of an ongoing deviation from the written schedule? • Are there holiday or school-break provisions that need to be included? • What future phases does the parenting plan con - tain? • Are those future phases relevant to the broader case even though they are not used for the thresh - old calculation? • What evidence supports or challenges the pro - posed relocation? • How would the child’s relationship with each parent be maintained if the move occurs? Answering these questions can help prevent a reloca - tion case from becoming confused at the outset by an incorrect residential-time calculation. The significance of Hauk The significance of Hauk extends beyond the particu - lar family involved because phased parenting plans are not unusual. Parenting schedules frequently change as children enter school, become more independent or reach different developmental stages.
221 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook