Can My Ex Move Away With Our Child If We Have 50/50 Custody?

For years, Washington's relocation law tilted toward the parent trying to move. Then the legislature asked an obvious question: when a child lives with both parents equally, why should either parent get a head start? The Law Office of Chad Foster helps Snohomish County clients with divorce and family-law matters.

If you and your ex share substantially equal residential time, which the statute says includes any schedule giving each of you 45 percent or more, your ex does not get the usual legal advantage a relocating parent enjoys. Under RCW 26.09.525, the presumption favoring relocation disappears in equal-time cases, and the court decides the move fresh, based purely on the child's best interests. Your ex must still give formal notice, you must still object on time, and the outcome turns on eleven statutory factors. Here is how the 50/50 relocation fight actually works.

The Usual Rule: A Presumption Favoring the Move

Washington's child relocation act builds in a thumb on the scale. When a parent with whom the child lives a majority of the time proposes to move, RCW 26.09.520 creates a rebuttable presumption that the intended relocation of the child will be permitted. The objecting parent can win only by showing that the detriment of the relocation outweighs the benefit of the change to the child and the relocating person. That is an uphill fight by design: the law defers to the life decisions of the parent doing most of the day-to-day parenting. For related guidance, see Can Mediation Resolve Child Custody Disputes.

For nearly two decades after the relocation act took effect in 2000, that framework governed relocation cases, including many schedules that were essentially equal, and the presumption gave majority-time parents a powerful advantage. Equal-time parents understandably asked why a 50/50 schedule should turn into a presumption against them the moment the other parent wanted to move. For related guidance, see Can Prenups Include Child Custody Provisions.

The Equal-Time Rule of RCW 26.09.525

The legislature answered in 2019. Under RCW 26.09.525, when the parent proposing relocation has substantially equal residential time, the presumption in RCW 26.09.520 does not apply. Instead, the court makes its determination in the best interests of the child, considering the same statutory factors, but with no thumb on the scale for either parent. In a true 50/50 case, the move must justify itself.

The statute defines its trigger. Substantially equal residential time includes arrangements in which 45 percent or more of the child's residential time is spent with each parent. And, critically, the statute tells courts how to count. The court considers only time with parents, not time ordered for nonparents, and it bases the determination on the amount of time designated in the court order, not the time actually exercised, unless three things are all true: there has been an ongoing pattern of substantial deviation from the residential schedule, both parents agreed to the deviation, and the deviation is not based on circumstances beyond either parent's control.

That counting rule decides real cases. If your parenting plan says 50/50 but the child has drifted to spending most nights at one house, the paper schedule still controls unless the drift was substantial, ongoing, mutual, and voluntary. A parent whose work schedule forced them to miss time has not lost equal-time status; a parent who quietly agreed for a year that the child would mostly stay with the other household may have. The lesson for any parent who values a 50/50 plan: live it, and document that you live it.

How an Equal-Time Relocation Case Unfolds

The procedure is the same as any relocation case. The parent intending to move must give notice under RCW 26.09.430 to everyone entitled to residential time, generally at least 60 days before the move under RCW 26.09.440, and the other parent must file and serve an objection within 30 days of receiving the notice under RCW 26.09.480, because failing to object lets the relocation proceed by default under RCW 26.09.500. Once an objection is filed, the court can enter temporary orders and the dispute heads toward a hearing.

At that hearing, the court works through the eleven factors of RCW 26.09.520: the strength and stability of the child's relationships with each parent and siblings; prior agreements; the comparative detriment of disrupting each relationship; any limiting factors under RCW 26.09.191 or 26.09.192; each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move and their good faith; the child's age, developmental stage, and needs; the quality of life and opportunities in each location; alternative visitation arrangements; alternatives to relocation, including whether the objecting parent could move too; the financial realities; and, for temporary orders, the timing of a final decision.

In an equal-time case, factor three often takes center stage. When a child genuinely splits life between two homes, a long-distance move cannot preserve both; one relationship gets compressed into school breaks and screens. Without a presumption to lean on, the relocating parent has to show the move's benefits are worth that cost, and courts scrutinize the reasons for the move, the good faith behind it, and the realism of the proposed long-distance schedule.

If You Are on Either Side of This

Whether you are hoping to move or hoping to stop a move, position matters before the notice is ever sent. Check what your order actually designates, because 45 percent is measured from the document. If reality has drifted from the schedule, understand which way the three-condition exception cuts in your case. Gather the evidence the factors reward: school records, the child's activities and community ties, each home's stability, and honest numbers about jobs and housing at both ends. And move quickly once notice arrives, because relocation deadlines are short and unforgiving. The mechanics of notice and objection, along with strategy for objecting parents, are covered in the companion article, can I move out of state with my child.

Equal Time Deserves an Equal Fight

RCW 26.09.525 exists because equal parenting arrangements deserve better than a presumption that one parent's plans outrank the other's. If a relocation notice has landed in your mailbox, or you are the one thinking about moving from a 50/50 schedule, the Law Office of Chad Foster can assess your position under the statute and build the factor-by-factor case that these disputes demand. Call 425.785.8679 to talk with a Snohomish County family law attorney before the deadlines start running.