Skip to content

Washington RCW 26.09.187 — Criteria for establishing permanent parenting plan

TL;DR. RCW 26.09.187 is Washington's primary parenting-plan statute. It structures the court's analysis into three subsections: (1) Dispute Resolution Process — selecting which forum the family must use (with mandatory court-only action where "limiting factors" under RCW 26.09.191 / 26.09.192 are present, which include domestic violence, child abuse, and serious neglect); (2) Allocation of Decision-making Authority — choosing between mutual, sole, or party-agreed decision-making, again gated by limiting factors; and (3) Residential Provisions — the 7-factor residential-schedule test, with the unusual structural rule that "Factor (i) shall be given the greatest weight" — that being "the relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent." This greatest-weight statutory rule makes Washington one of the most explicit US state frameworks tying residential-schedule outcomes to the documented strength of the parent-child relationship — a structurally distinctive PA-relevant statutory anchor.

Source: Washington Legislature canonical URL — Washington state statutes are public domain. · Fetched: 2026-06-13 · Editorial commentary licence: CC BY 4.0

Full statutory text (verbatim)

RCW 26.09.187 — Criteria for establishing permanent parenting plan

(1) DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS. The court shall not order a dispute resolution process, except court action, when it finds that any limiting factor under RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 applies, or when it finds that either parent is unable to afford the cost of the proposed dispute resolution process. If a dispute resolution process is not precluded or limited, then in designating such a process the court shall consider all relevant factors, including:

(a) Differences between the parents that would substantially inhibit their effective participation in any designated process;

(b) The parents' wishes or agreements and, if the parents have entered into agreements, whether the agreements were made knowingly and voluntarily; and

© Differences in the parents' financial circumstances that may affect their ability to participate fully in a given dispute resolution process.

(2) ALLOCATION OF DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY.

(a) AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. The court shall approve agreements of the parties allocating decision-making authority, or specifying rules in the areas listed in RCW 26.09.184(5)(a), when it finds that:

**(i)** The agreement is consistent with any limitations on a parent's decision-making authority mandated by RCW 26.09.191 and 26.09.192; and

**(ii)** The agreement is knowing and voluntary.

(b) SOLE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. The court shall order sole decision-making to one parent when it finds that:

**(i)** A limitation on the other parent's decision-making authority is mandated by RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192;

**(ii)** Both parents are opposed to mutual decision making;

**(iii)** One parent is opposed to mutual decision making, and such opposition is reasonable based on the criteria in (c) of this subsection.

© MUTUAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. Except as provided in (a) and (b) of this subsection, the court shall consider the following criteria in allocating decision-making authority:

**(i)** The existence of a limitation under RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192;

**(ii)** The history of participation of each parent in decision making in each of the areas in RCW 26.09.184(5)(a);

**(iii)** Whether the parents have a demonstrated ability and desire to cooperate with one another in decision making in each of the areas in RCW 26.09.184(5)(a); and

**(iv)** The parents' geographic proximity to one another, to the extent that it affects their ability to make timely mutual decisions.

(3) RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS.

(a) The court shall make residential provisions for each child which encourage each parent to maintain a loving, stable, and nurturing relationship with the child, consistent with the child's developmental level and the family's social and economic circumstances. The child's residential schedule shall be consistent with RCW 26.09.191 and 26.09.192. Where the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 are not dispositive of the child's residential schedule, the court shall consider the following factors:

**(i)** The relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent;

**(ii)** The agreements of the parties, provided they were entered into knowingly and voluntarily;

**(iii)** Each parent's past and potential for future performance of parenting functions as defined in *RCW 26.09.004(2), including whether a parent has taken greater responsibility for performing parenting functions relating to the daily needs of the child;

**(iv)** The emotional needs and developmental level of the child;

**(v)** The child's relationship with siblings and with other significant adults, as well as the child's involvement with his or her physical surroundings, school, or other significant activities;

**(vi)** The wishes of the parents and the wishes of a child who is sufficiently mature to express reasoned and independent preferences as to his or her residential schedule; and

**(vii)** Each parent's employment schedule, and shall make accommodations consistent with those schedules.

Factor (i) shall be given the greatest weight.

(b) Where the limitations of RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192 are not dispositive, the court may order that a child frequently alternate his or her residence between the households of the parents for brief and substantially equal intervals of time if such provision is in the best interests of the child. In determining whether such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child, the court may consider the parties geographic proximity to the extent necessary to ensure the ability to share performance of the parenting functions.

© For any child, residential provisions may contain any reasonable terms or conditions that facilitate the orderly and meaningful exercise of residential time by a parent, including but not limited to requirements of reasonable notice when residential time will not occur.

[History: 2025 c 166 s 4; 2007 c 496 s 603; 1989 c 375 s 10; 1987 c 460 s 9.]

Why RCW 26.09.187 matters for parental-alienation analysis

Washington's parenting-plan statute is one of the most procedurally detailed in any US state, and it intersects PA-pattern conduct in several distinctive ways:

  • (3)(a)(i) "Greatest weight" rule — "Factor (i) shall be given the greatest weight" makes "the relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent" the single most heavily weighted factor in the residential schedule. This is the canonical statutory anchor for PA-context cases where a parent has sustained efforts to weaken the child's relationship with the other parent — the greatest-weight rule means a documented PA-pattern campaign that has reduced the strength/stability of the target parent's relationship will directly affect the residential-schedule allocation. PA-aware practice in Washington focuses on documenting the historical baseline of the parent-child relationship before the alienating conduct, so the court can assess what the relationship's "relative strength, nature, and stability" was absent the obstruction.

  • (3)(a)(iii) — "past and potential for future performance of parenting functions" — this provides a hook for considering whether one parent has historically performed (or failed to perform) the role of supporting the other parent's relationship with the child. RCW 26.09.004 defines parenting functions, and Washington appellate case law has treated support of the other parent's relationship as a parenting function.

  • (3)(a)(vi) — child's wishes — Washington requires the child to be "sufficiently mature to express reasoned and independent preferences" — the explicit "independent" qualifier is a direct legislative acknowledgment that wishes shaped by one parent's influence do not satisfy the threshold.

  • (1) and (2) Limiting factors at RCW 26.09.191 / 26.09.192 — Washington maintains a robust limiting-factor framework that addresses domestic violence, child abuse, and serious neglect. The limiting factors are mandatory exclusions from mutual decision-making and from dispute-resolution alternatives to court action — they preserve safety primacy over PA-context analyses. Conversely, RCW 26.09.191 does NOT include "PA-pattern conduct" as a limiting factor, which means PA-context evidence operates through the residential-schedule analysis at (3) rather than as a categorical limiting factor.

The combination of the greatest-weight relationship-strength rule + the independent-wishes qualifier makes Washington one of the most explicitly PA-aware US state statutory frameworks without using the term.

Cross-references within the AntiAlienate Knowledge Base

Primary source

  • Washington Legislature canonical URL: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.09.187
  • Statute citation: RCW 26.09.187 (Revised Code of Washington, Title 26 Domestic Relations, Chapter 26.09 Dissolution Proceedings, section 26.09.187)
  • Codification history: Enacted 1987 c 460 s 9; substantively amended 1989 c 375 s 10, 2007 c 496 s 603, 2025 c 166 s 4.
  • Status: Public domain — Washington state statutes are not subject to copyright (general principle that government-authored law is public domain).

Sources & authoritative references

Referenced in this page:

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):