On March 17, 2000, Governor Locke signed the Custody Relocation Bill which passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming margins during this year's legislative session. The bill, Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2884, establishes notice requirements for parties subject to court orders regarding residential time or visitation when a party seeks to relocate or move-away.
The bill was in response to court cases dealing with the relocation issue. By its very terms, this new law expressly supersedes the state supreme court's controversial decisions on the relocation issue handed down in the past three years: In re Marriage of Littlefield and In re Marriage of Pape.
Under the new law, requirements are imposed upon the parent intending to relocate by specifying when that parent must give notice of the proposed relocation. The law also sets forth the particular contents and method of delivery of the notice, as well as the consequences for failure to give notice. If the non-moving party objects to the relocation or proposed revised schedule by the parent intending to move, the law sets forth a procedure to have the matter reviewed by the court.
Under the law, there is a rebuttable presumption that the intended relocation of the child will be permitted. Upon objection, the presumption may be rebutted by demonstrating that the detrimental effect of the relocation outweighs the benefit of the change to the child and the relocating person, based upon assessment of the following factors:
- The relative strength, nature, quality, extent of involvement, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent, siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life;
- Prior agreements of the parties;
- Whether disrupting the contact between the child and the person with whom the child resides a majority of the time would be more detrimental to the child than disrupting contact between the child and the person objecting to the relocation;
- Whether either parent or a person entitled to residential time with the child is subject to limitations under RCW 26.09.191;
- The reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation and the good faith of each of the parties in requesting or opposing the relocation;
- The age, developmental stage, and needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation or its prevention will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child;
- The quality of life, resources, and opportunities available to the child and to the relocating party in the current and proposed geographic locations;
- The availability of alternative arrangements to foster and continue the child's relationship with and access to the other parent;
- The alternatives to relocation and whether it is feasible and desirable for the other party to relocate also;
- The financial impact and logistics of the relocation or its prevention; and
- For a temporary order, the amount of time before a final decision can be made at trial.
The law also sets forth that a hearing involving the relocation issue shall be given priority on the court's motion calendar and trial docket.
The effective date of the new law is June 8, 2000.
