Can a Parent Convicted of a Sex Offense Against a Child Get Residential Time in Washington?

Few questions in family law carry stakes this high, for the child who needs protection and for the family trying to understand what the law actually allows. The Law Office of Chad Foster helps Snohomish County clients with divorce and family-law matters.

Washington law starts from a presumption of no contact. Under RCW 26.09.192, a parent convicted as an adult of a sex offense against any child is presumed to pose a present danger, and unless the parent rebuts that presumption, the court must restrain the parent from all contact with the child. The presumption can be overcome only with clear and convincing evidence, typically anchored in completed or ongoing sex offender treatment, and even then contact ordinarily must be supervised. One line is absolute: a court cannot order unsupervised contact between a parent and a child that parent sexually abused. Here is how the framework operates, whichever side of it you are on.

The Presumption Against Contact

RCW 26.09.192, a section the legislature created in 2025 by moving these rules out of RCW 26.09.191, where older orders and forms still cite them, addresses sex offenses in parenting cases with a structure found almost nowhere else in family law: instead of weighing factors from a neutral starting point, the court begins from a mandated answer. When a parent has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense against any child, the statute creates a rebuttable presumption that the parent poses a present danger to a child, and unless the parent rebuts the presumption, the court shall restrain the parent from all contact. For related guidance, see Can I Get My Child's School and Medical Records If I'm Not the Primary Parent.

Notice the breadth. The presumption applies whether or not the child in the parenting case was the victim. A conviction involving any child triggers it, on the logic that the risk does not confine itself to past victims. And the restraint, absent rebuttal, is total: no residential time, no visitation, no contact. A conviction is not the only trigger, either. Under RCW 26.09.192(2)(b), if a court in a dependency or family law case, including the current one, has found by a preponderance of the evidence that a parent sexually abused the child, the court may not allow that parent contact with the child unless the child's evaluator or therapist recommends it and concludes the child will not be harmed. For related guidance, see Who Counts as the Custodial Parent in Washington, and Does It Control Who Claims the Child on Taxes.

The statute reaches one step further, to households. A rebuttable presumption also arises when a parent knowingly resides with a person who has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense against a child, or adjudicated as a juvenile of a sex offense against a child at least eight years younger: the arrangement is presumed to place the child at risk, and contact is ordinarily limited to times when the convicted person is not present. Parents sometimes lose residential time not for anything they did, but for who they chose to live with, and the statute treats that as exactly the kind of decision a parenting case must confront. For parents designated sexually violent predators under chapter 71.09 RCW, the restrictions are at their most severe.

These provisions work alongside RCW 26.09.191, the broader statute that limits residential time and decision-making for abuse, domestic violence, and related conduct, and which pulls dispute resolution out of the picture as well, as explained in do I have to mediate with my abuser.

Rebutting the Presumption

The statute leaves a door, and it is a narrow one. To rebut the presumption, the offending parent must persuade the court to make a written finding, based on clear and convincing evidence, that contact is appropriate and poses minimal risk to the child. Clear and convincing evidence is a demanding standard, well above the ordinary more-likely-than-not measure used in most family law disputes.

What does that evidence look like in practice? The statute points to sex offender treatment: documentation that the parent has successfully completed treatment, or is making meaningful progress in it, is effectively the price of admission. Courts also look at the nature and age of the conviction, evaluations by qualified professionals, the proposed contact arrangements and their safeguards, and, where the child in the case was the victim, input from the child's therapist. A parent who denies the offense, skipped treatment, or proposes casual unsupervised weekends has no realistic path. A parent years into documented treatment, with a professional risk assessment and a tightly structured proposal, has an argument the court must at least weigh.

What Contact Looks Like If the Door Opens

Rebutting the presumption does not restore normal parenting. It changes "no contact" into "carefully controlled contact." Court-approved contact ordinarily must be supervised by a neutral and independent adult, under conditions designed to protect the child, and the parenting plan will spell out the where, when, and who of every visit. Supervision arrangements themselves get scrutiny: the court may not approve a supervisor without finding that person willing and capable of protecting the child, and must revoke the approval if the supervisor fails to protect the child, so the supervisor must be genuinely neutral and genuinely present, not a sympathetic relative waiting in the car. The statute leaves one later path to unsupervised contact, and only for a child who was not the parent's victim: after at least two years of supervised residential time with no new sex-offense arrests or convictions involving children, and after hearing from a certified therapist, counselor, or social worker with expertise in child sexual abuse who supervised at least one visit, the court may find unsupervised contact appropriate and of minimal risk. A parent who was never court-ordered into treatment must first obtain a psychosexual evaluation from a certified provider showing the lowest risk of reoffending.

And one restriction cannot be waived, rebutted, or lawyered around: the court shall not order unsupervised contact between the offending parent and a child of that parent who was sexually abused by that parent. For that child, supervised contact is the ceiling, whatever the treatment record shows.

Decision-making follows the same trajectory. A parent restrained from contact will not be sharing decisions about schooling and medical care, and even a parent with limited supervised time will not share them either: RCW 26.09.192(5) bars mutual decision-making and any dispute resolution process other than court action whenever a parent has been convicted as an adult of a sex offense against any child. Everyday rights that ordinarily survive a thin schedule, like the equal access to school and medical records most nonresidential parents keep, can also be restricted by court order in cases like these.

For the Protective Parent

If you are the other parent, the statute is your tool, but it does not operate by itself. The conviction must be put before the court, with certified records, and the parenting plan must be drafted to implement the restraints precisely: contact provisions, residential provisions, and the household rule if the offending parent lives with others. Vague plans invite boundary-testing. You should also know that the presumption framework applies at every stage, from temporary orders at the start of a case through modifications years later, and that a parent's changed household, such as a new partner with a qualifying conviction, can itself justify returning to court.

Get Counsel Who Has Seen These Cases

Whether you are a parent seeking to protect a child or a parent trying to establish that safe, supervised contact is possible, cases under RCW 26.09.192 are won and lost on evidence: convictions, treatment records, evaluations, and the structure of the proposed plan. The Law Office of Chad Foster handles high-stakes parenting cases throughout Snohomish County and can tell you candidly what the statute means for your family. Call 425.785.8679 for a confidential consultation.

If you believe a child is in immediate danger, call 911.