5453 AMH JUDI TANG 077

SB 5453 - H COMM AMD

By Committee on Judiciary

ADOPTED 4/14/2009

    On page 2, after line 1, insert the following:

"Sec. 2. RCW 26.09.520 and 2000 c 21 s 14 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The person proposing to relocate with the child shall provide his or her reasons for the intended relocation.  Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, there is a rebuttable presumption that the intended relocation of the child will be permitted.  A person entitled to object to the intended relocation of the child may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the detrimental effect of the relocation outweighs the benefit of the change to the child and the relocating person, based upon the following factors.  The factors listed in this section are not weighted.  No inference is to be drawn from the order in which the following factors are listed:

    (((1))) (a) 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;

    (((2))) (b) Prior agreements of the parties;

    (((3))) (c) 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;

    (((4))) (d) Whether either parent or a person entitled to residential time with the child is subject to limitations under RCW 26.09.191;

    (((5))) (e) 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;

    (((6))) (f) 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;

    (((7))) (g) The quality of life, resources, and opportunities available to the child and to the relocating party in the current and proposed geographic locations;

    (((8))) (h) The availability of alternative arrangements to foster and continue the child's relationship with and access to the other parent;

    (((9))) (i) The alternatives to relocation and whether it is feasible and desirable for the other party to relocate also;

    (((10))) (j) The financial impact and logistics of the relocation or its prevention; and

    (((11))) (k) For a temporary order, the amount of time before a final decision can be made at trial.

(2) The rebuttable presumption under subsection (1) of this section does not apply when the child, under a court order, has substantially equal residential time with the person proposing to relocate the child and another person entitled to residential time with the child."

    Correct the title.

EFFECT:   The rebuttable presumption that the intended relocation of the child will be permitted does not apply when the child has substantially equal residential time with the person proposing to relocate and another person with court-ordered residential time with the child. 

--- END ---