Superior Court of Washington County of In re: No. Child(ren), Petitioner(s), and Order on Objection to Relocation/Modification of Custody Decree/Parenting Plan/Residential Schedule (Relocation) (ORDYMT or ORGRRE) Respondent(s). I. Basis This order is entered pursuant to: [] [] [] A hearing on the Objection to Relocation/Petition for Modification of Custody Decree/Parenting Plan/Residential Schedule held on (date) ______________________________________. An agreement of the parties. An order of default signed by the court on this date or dated______________________________. II. Findings The Court finds: 2.1 Adequate Cause The relocation of children was pursued. There was no need for adequate cause for hearing this petition for modification. 2.2 Jurisdiction This court has jurisdiction over this proceeding for the reasons below: [] This court has exclusive continuing jurisdiction. The court has previously made a child custody, parenting plan, residential schedule or visitation determination in this matter and retains jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.211. Ord re Obj to Reloc/Mod P Plan/Res Schd (ORDYMT or ORGRRE) - Page 1 of 6 WPF DRPSCU 07.0900 Mandatory (6/2008) - RCW 26.09.520, .260(6), 26.10.190, 26.26.160 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com [] This state is the home state of the children because: [] [] [] [] [] the children lived in Washington with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately preceding the commencement of this proceeding. the children are less than six months old and have lived in Washington with a parent or a person acting as parent since birth. any absences from Washington have been only temporary. Washington was the home state of the children within six months before the commencement of this proceeding and the children are absent from the state, but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state. The children and the parents or the children and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent have significant connection with the state other than mere physical presence, and substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the children’s care, protection, training and personal relationships, and [] [] the children have no home state elsewhere. the children’s home state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under RCW 26.27.261 or .271. [] All courts in the children's home state have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the children under RCW 26.27.261 or .271. [] No other state has jurisdiction. [] This court has temporary emergency jurisdiction over this proceeding because the children are present in this state and the children have been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the children because the children, or a sibling or parent of the children are subjected to or threatened with abuse. RCW 26.27.231. [] [] [] 2.3 There is a previous custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this chapter or a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.201 through 26.27.221. The requirements of RCW 26.27.231(3) apply to this matter. This state’s jurisdiction over the children shall last until (date) ________________________________. There is no previous custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this chapter and a child custody proceeding has not been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under RCW 26.27.201 through 26.27.221. If an action is not filed in (potential home state) ____________________________ by the time the child has been in Washington for six months, (date) _____________________________, then Washington's jurisdiction will be final and continuing. Other: Findings Regarding Objection to the Relocation Ord re Obj to Reloc/Mod P Plan/Res Schd (ORDYMT or ORGRRE) - Page 2 of 6 WPF DRPSCU 07.0900 Mandatory (6/2008) - RCW 26.09.520, .260(6), 26.10.190, 26.26.160 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com Based upon the following factors, the detrimental effect of allowing the children to move with the relocating person [ ] do [ ] do not outweigh the benefits of the move to the children and the relocating person: 2.3.1 The relative strength, nature, quality, extent of involvement, and stability of the child’s relationship with each parent [ ] sibling [ ] and other significant persons in the child’s life. [ ] Does not apply. [ ] Does apply as follows: 2.3.2 Prior agreements of the parties. [ ] Does not apply. [ ] Does apply as follows: 2.3.3 Disrupting contact between the child and the objecting party or parent is more detrimental to the child than disrupting contact between the child and the person with whom the child resides a majority of the time. [ ] Does not apply. [ ] Does apply as follows: 2.3.4a The objecting party or parent [ ] is [ ] is not subject to limitations under RCW 26.09.191. [ ] Does not apply. [ ] Does apply as follows: 2.3.4b The following parents or persons entitled to residential time with the child are subject to limitations under RCW 26.09.191. [ ] Does not apply. [ ] Does apply as follows: 2.3.5 The reasons and good faith of each person seeking or opposing the relocation. [ ] Does not apply. Ord re Obj to Reloc/Mod P Plan/Res Schd (ORDYMT or ORGRRE) - Page 3 of 6 WPF DRPSCU 07.0900 Mandatory (6/2008) - RCW 26.09.520, .260(6), 26.10.190, 26.26.160 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com [ ] Does apply as follows: 2.3.6 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. [ ] Does not apply. [ ] Does apply as follows: 2.3.7 The quality of life, resources, and opportunities available to the child and to the relocating party in the current and proposed geographic locations. [ ] Does not apply. [ ] Does apply as follows: 2.3.8 The availability of alternative arrangements to foster and continue the child’s relationship with and access to the other parent. [ ] Does not apply. [ ] Does apply as follows: 2.3.9 Alternatives to relocation and whether it is feasible and desirable for the other party to relocate. [ ] Does not apply. [ ] Does apply as follows: 2.3.10 The financial impact and logistics of relocation or its prevention. [ ] Does not apply. [ ] Does apply as follows: 2.4 Findings Regarding Objection to Relocating Party’s Proposed Parenting Plan/Residential Schedule [] The petition for modification should be denied. The relocating party’s proposed parenting plan should be approved. Ord re Obj to Reloc/Mod P Plan/Res Schd (ORDYMT or ORGRRE) - Page 4 of 6 WPF DRPSCU 07.0900 Mandatory (6/2008) - RCW 26.09.520, .260(6), 26.10.190, 26.26.160 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com [] [] 2.5 The petition for modification should be granted. The objecting party’s request for an adjustment of the residential aspects of the relocating party’s proposed parenting plan should be granted. The adjustment does not include a change in the residence in which the child resides the majority of the time. The petition for modification should be granted. The objecting party’s request for a modification of the relocating party’s proposed parenting plan/residential schedule, including a change in the residence in which the child resides the majority of the time, should be granted. Protection Order [] [] Does not apply. The [ ] domestic violence [ ] antiharassment Order for Protection signed by the court on this date or dated ________________________________, is approved and incorporated as part of these findings. III. Order It is Ordered: 3.1 Objection to Relocation [] [] 3.2 The relocating party is restrained from relocating the children. The relocating party is permitted to relocate the children. Parenting Plan [] [] 3.3 The new parenting plan/residential schedule signed by the court on this date or dated _____________________________ is approved and incorporated as part of this order. This decree or parenting plan/residential schedule supersedes all previous decrees or parenting plans/residential schedules. The previously entered custody decree/parenting plan/residential schedule signed by the court dated on ____________________________________ shall remain in effect. It is Further Ordered [] Child support shall be modified in accordance with the objecting party’s parenting plan/residential schedule approved by the court. The order of child support signed by the court on this dated or dated _________________________________ is approved and incorporated as part of this order. This order of child support supersedes all previous child support orders. [] The Order of Child Support signed by the court dated on __________________________ in ___________________________ County shall remain in effect. [] The parties shall comply with the [ ] domestic violence [ ] antiharassment Order for Protection signed by the court on this date or dated _____________________________, in this cause number. The Order for Protection signed by the court is approved and incorporated as part of this decree. Ord re Obj to Reloc/Mod P Plan/Res Schd (ORDYMT or ORGRRE) - Page 5 of 6 WPF DRPSCU 07.0900 Mandatory (6/2008) - RCW 26.09.520, .260(6), 26.10.190, 26.26.160 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com [] Other: Dated: Judge/Commissioner Presented by: Approved by: Signature of Party or Lawyer/WSBA No. Signature of Party or Lawyer/WSBA No. Print or Type Name Print or Type Name Date Date Signature of Party or Lawyer/WSBA No. Print or Type Name Date Ord re Obj to Reloc/Mod P Plan/Res Schd (ORDYMT or ORGRRE) - Page 6 of 6 WPF DRPSCU 07.0900 Mandatory (6/2008) - RCW 26.09.520, .260(6), 26.10.190, 26.26.160 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com