Relocation - Recent Washington State Developments

The 2,000 Legislature has set "new" standards for determining when Relocation of a child is appropriate. The new act, ESHB 2884, known as "Notice requirements and standards for parental relocation" has an effective date of June 8th, 2000. However the provisions of the Act also apply to parenting plan/orders entered prior to June 8th 2000. A quick overview is contained in the subsection titles as follows:

1. UNTITLED -( Cases superseded)
   leading cases, Littlefield and Pape, superseded .
2. DEFINITIONS.
   "Court order" a Temp or Permanent parenting plan, custody order, or visitation order.
   "Relocation" a change in principal residence either permanently or for a protracted period of time.
3. APPLICABILITY.
   To a court order regarding residential time or visitation of a child issued after June 8th, 2000; and before June 8th, 2000, if the prior court order does not expressly govern relocation of the child.
4. GRANT OF AUTHORITY.
   The Court now HAS authority to allow or not allow "a person to relocate the child" - previously Littlefield and Pape were interpreted by some as not authorizing the trial court to approve or deny a parent the right to relocate the child.
5. NOTICE REQUIREMENT.
   Primary residential parent required to give Notice to all other people entitled to residential time or visitation with the child , unless Sec. 8 applies.
6. NOTICE- -CONTENTS AND DELIVERY.
   Except, per Sections 7 and 8, Notice of intended relocation must be given by personal service or mail requiring return receipt no less than 60 days, or within 5 days of knowing of intended relocation, if the relocating person could not have known 60 days in advance. Further terms of this section detail the information that must be included in the notice, including, why move is necessary, specific street address of intended new residence, new home phone number, new school name and address, date of intended relocation, a revised residential schedule , and most importantly, that any objecting person must object to either the relocating place &/or the revised residential schedule proposed by the relocating parent, within 30 days, by filing written objection with the court, etc.
7. NOTICE- -RELOCATION WITHIN THE SAME SCHOOL DISTRICT.
   Actual notice by any reasonable means is ok. No objections permitted, but modification under RCW 26.09.260 may be available.
8. LIMITATION OF NOTICES.
   (1) If relocating person is entering a domestic violence shelter due to the "danger imposed by another person", notice may be delayed for 21 days.
   (2) If relocating person is in a confidentiality program or has a court order which permits withholding information the confidential information need not be given in the notice.
   (3) If person is relocating to avoid a "clear, immediate, and unreasonable risk to the health or safely of a person or the child, notice may be delayed by 21 days.
   (4) A person believing that his/her or the child's health or safety is at risk may request an ex parte (without notice ) hearing with the court to have all or part of the notice requirements waived.
   However subsection (5) STATES THAT "This section does not deprive a person entitled to residential time or visitation with a child under a court order the opportunity to object to the intended relocation of the child or the proposed revised residential schedule BEFORE THE RELOCATION OCCURS."
9. FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE.
   May result in finding of contempt., Defines what the court may consider there has been substantial compliance ending with" any other factor the court deems relevant. The objecting person may still file an objection whether or not he/she received proper notice.
10. OBJECTION TO RELOCATION OR PROPOSED REVISED RESIDENTIAL SCHEDULE
    (1) Objection must be filed and served, including a 3 day waiting period if objection is served by mail, within 30 days of receipt of the notice of intent to relocate.
    (2) Unless subsection 8 applies, the person intending to relocate the child shall NOT , without court order, change the principal residence of the child during the period in which the party may object.
    (3) Mandatory forms shall be developed.
11. REQUIRED PROVISION IN RESIDENTIAL ORDERS.
    After June 8th, 2000 all parenting plan/orders SHALL include a clear restatement of the provisions of subsections 5 through 10.
12. FAILURE TO OBJECT.
    (1) If no objection is filed within 30 days (absent good cause) after receipt of notice, the relocation SHALL be permitted.
    (2) A nonobjecting person shall be entitled to the residential time specified in the proposed residential schedule included in the relocation notice.
    (3) A person entitled to residential time or visitation retains their right to move for modification under RCW 26.09.260.
    (4) No motion for contempt for acting in compliance of the new proposed residential plan will be upheld if the person entitled to object fails to object within 30 days of receipt of notice.
    (5) After 30 days, with no objection being filed, any person may obtain an ex parte order modifying the residential plan in conformity with the relocating parties proposed residential schedule specified in the notice if the party files a copy of the notice and proof of service. Also a party may obtain an ex parte order approving the relocating parties proposed residential schedule specified in the notice before 30 days have passed since notice was served if the party files a copy of the notice and proof of service of such notice, and "proof that no objection will be filed."
13. TEMPORARY ORDERS.
    (1) Temporary orders restraining relocation, or ordering the return of the child may be entered if, the required notice was not provided in a timely manner, and the nonrelocating party was substantially prejudiced; the relocation occurred without agreement of the parties, court order, of the required notice; or after a hearing at which the parties had adequate time to prepare, the court concludes that there is a likelihood that on the final hearing the court will not approve the intended relocation
    (2) Temporary Orders permitting the intended relocation pending the final hearing may be entered if there was timely notice or circumstances otherwise warrant an order absence compliance, providing the court also orders a revised schedule for residential time with the child; and after a hearing at which the parties had adequate time to prepare, the court concludes that there is a likelihood that on the final hearing the court will approve the intended relocation .
14. BASIS FOR DETERMINATION.
    Provided the relocating person has provided his/her reasons, the intended relocation will be reputably presumed to be permitted. In order to rebut the presumption the objector must demonstrate that the detrimental effect of the relocation outweighs the alleged benefit of relocation to the child based on 11 factors:
    (1) Stability of child's relationship with each parent, siblings and significant others;
    (2) Prior agreement of the parties;
    (3) Would disrupting contact between the child and the primary residential parent be more detrimental to the child than disrupting contact between the child and the objecting person;
    (4) Whether either parent or another entitled to residential time with the child is subject to domestic, physical or sexual violence limitations under RCW 26.09.191;
    (5) The goof faith or lack thereof of each person seeking or opposing relocation;
    (6) The developmental stage and needs of the child and likely impact of relocation;
    (7) A comparison of the opportunities available to the child and the relocating party in the current and the proposed geographic locations;
    (8) Availability of alternative arrangements to continue access to the nonrelocating parent;
    (9) The alternatives to relocation and whether it is feasible and desirable for the other parent to also relocate;
    (10) Financial impact and logistics of relocation or its prevention;
    (11) For a temporary order, the amount of time before a final decision can be made at trial.
15. FACTOR NOT TO BE CONSIDERED.
    The court shall not admit evidence concerning whether the relocating person will give up his/her own relocation if the child's relocation is denied.
16. OBJECTIONS BY NONPARENTS.
    The court shall not restrict the right to relocate the child if the only objection to relocation is from a third party, subject to certain if the third party served as the primary residential parent for a substantial time during the prior 36 months.
17. SANCTIONS.
    The court may sanction any party who proposes or objects to a relocation in bad faith.
18. PRIORITY FOR HEARING.
    Relocation cases shall have scheduling priority.
19. RCW 26.09/260 RESTATED AS AMENDED.
    New subsections added consistent with the above.
20. RCW 26.26.160 RESTATED AS AMENDED.
    New subsections added consistent with the above.
21. RCW 26.10.190 RESTATED AS AMENDED.
    New subsections added consistent with the above.

I strongly suggest that anyone involved in the relocation of a child, whether requesting or opposing, contact an experienced family law attorney who has familiarity with the new Relocation Act signed by Governor Gary Locke March 17th, 2000.

This announcement is only intended to call attention to the new legislation. There are traps, in my opinion, for the unweary, particularly in Subsections 8, 10 and 14.