BP BHEAD INT H [atlas:bill]

AN ACT Relating to the geographical relocation of children after dissolution; amending RCW 26.09.260; and creating a new section.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The legislature finds and declares that:

(a) The relocation of children after dissolution is an issue that has been heavily litigated and has caused much confusion in the courts and for families;

(b) The parenting act recognizes the fundamental importance of the parent-child relationship to the welfare of the child and that the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered in parenting plans tailored to involve the child in both parents' lives unless inconsistent with the child's best interest;

(c) The December 1999 decision by the state supreme court, In re the Marriage of Pape, is contrary to the overall policy of the parenting act;

(d) The best interest of the child is generally served when the existing patterns between the child and each parent remain stable and predictable;

(e) Changing the geographic location of a child after dissolution may have significant impacts on the relationship between the child and the nonmoving parent, and such a decision is not minor and should not be made without careful consideration; and

(f) The scope of the minor modification statute was not intended to permit a change in the child's residence, when such relocation would significantly disrupt the relationship between the nonrelocating parent and the child.

(2) By this act, the legislature intends to override the court's policy and standards articulated in Pape.

Sec. 2. RCW 26.09.260 and 1999 c 174 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4), (5), (7), and (9) of this section, the court shall not modify a prior custody decree or a parenting plan unless it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or plan or that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree or plan, that a substantial change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the nonmoving party and that the modification is in the best interest of the child and is necessary to serve the best interests of the child.

(2) In applying these standards, the court shall retain the residential schedule established by the decree or parenting plan unless:

(a) The parents agree to the modification;

(b) The child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner with the consent of the other parent in substantial deviation from the parenting plan;

(c) The child's present environment is detrimental to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child; or

(d) The court has found the nonmoving parent in contempt of court at least twice within three years because the parent failed to comply with the residential time provisions in the court-ordered parenting plan, or the parent has been convicted of custodial interference in the first or second degree under RCW 9A.40.060 or 9A.40.070.

(3) A conviction of custodial interference in the first or second degree under RCW 9A.40.060 or 9A.40.070 shall constitute a substantial change of circumstances for the purposes of this section.

(4) The court may reduce or restrict contact between ((~~the nonprimary residential~~)) a parent and a child if it finds that the reduction or restriction would serve and protect the best interests of the child using the criteria in RCW 26.09.191.

(5) The court may order adjustments to the residential aspects of a parenting plan upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances of either parent or of the child, and without consideration of the factors set forth in subsection (2) of this section, if the proposed modification is only a minor modification in the residential schedule that does not change the residence the child is scheduled to reside in the majority of the time and:

(a) Does not exceed twenty-four full days in a calendar year; or

(b) Is based on a change of residence or an involuntary change in work schedule by a parent which:

(i) Makes the residential schedule in the parenting plan impractical to follow; and

(ii) Does not result in a significant geographical relocation of the child away from the other parent; or

(c) Does not result in a schedule that exceeds ninety overnights per year in total, if the court finds that, at the time the petition for modification is filed, the decree of dissolution or parenting plan does not provide reasonable time with the ((~~nonprimary residential parent at the time the petition for modification is filed~~)) parent whom the child resides with a minority of the time, and further, the court finds that it is in the best interests of the child to increase residential time with the ((~~nonprimary residential~~)) other parent in excess of the residential time period in (a) of this subsection. However, any motion under this subsection (5)(c) is subject to the factors established in subsection (2) of this section if the party bringing the motion has previously been granted a modification under this same subsection within twenty-four months of the current motion. Relief granted under this section shall not be the sole basis for adjusting or modifying child support.

(6) A ((~~nonprimary residential~~)) parent with whom the child resides the minority of the time whose residential time with the child is subject to limitations pursuant to RCW 26.09.191 (2) or (3) may not seek expansion of residential time under subsection (5)(c) of this section unless that parent demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances specifically related to the basis for the limitation.

(7) If a ((~~nonprimary residential~~)) parent with whom the child resides the minority of the time voluntarily fails to exercise residential time for an extended period, that is, one year or longer, the court upon proper motion may make adjustments to the parenting plan in keeping with the best interests of the minor child.

(8) A ((~~nonprimary parent~~)) parent with whom the child resides a minority of the time who is required by the existing parenting plan to complete evaluations, treatment, parenting, or other classes may not seek expansion of residential time under subsection (5)(c) of this section unless that parent has fully complied with such requirements.

(9) The court may order adjustments to any of the nonresidential aspects of a parenting plan upon a showing of a substantial change of circumstances of either parent or of a child, and the adjustment is in the best interest of the child. Adjustments ordered under this section may be made without consideration of the factors set forth in subsection (2) of this section.

(10) If the court finds that a motion to modify a prior decree or parenting plan has been brought in bad faith, the court shall assess the attorney's fees and court costs of the nonmoving parent against the moving party.