The Washington Supreme Court determined Thursday that in child relocation cases involving phased parenting plans, courts must assess each parent’s residential time according to the specific phase active at the moment the relocating parent formally notifies the other of the intended move—rather than evaluating the entire plan from start to finish.

The 5-4 ruling, issued on August 6 in *In re Marriage of Hauk*, overturns a previous split decision by the Court of Appeals and instructs Kitsap County Superior Court to conduct additional fact-finding.

The dispute originated from the divorce of Arynn Hauk and Brandon Wuesthoff. Their daughter, T.W., was two when the court adopted their parenting plan after a trial. The plan introduced the father’s residential time incrementally over four phases, aiming for a final arrangement where both parents shared equal overnight custody once the child entered kindergarten.

Approximately two years after the plan took effect, Hauk submitted notice of her plan to relocate with T.W. to Virginia. Her reasons included proximity to her fiancé’s children from a prior relationship, reduced living expenses, and improved employment prospects. At the time of notice, the family was operating under the third phase, in which Wuesthoff cared for the child six out of every 14 overnights—roughly 16 months before the transition to equal time was scheduled.

Central to the case was Washington’s Child Relocation Act, which grants a moving parent a presumption in favor of relocation unless the parties share “substantially equal residential time,” defined as each parent caring for the child at least 45 percent of the time.

At the trial level, Hauk contended she qualified for the presumption, citing her 57 percent share of residential time under the then-current phase. The court, however, measured time across the entire duration of the plan, projecting through the child’s 18th birthday. This broader view showed Wuesthoff would ultimately have 46.9 percent of overnights, leading the judge to conclude the presumption did not apply. Although the court ultimately denied the move, it observed that Wuesthoff likely would not have defeated the presumption had it been triggered.

After Hauk reaffirmed her intent to relocate, the court adopted a modified arrangement, which remains in effect: T.W. resides with her father during the school year in Washington and with her mother in Virginia over the summer.

The Court of Appeals upheld the decision in a split ruling, with Judge Veljacic issuing a dissenting opinion.

Justice Colleen Melody, writing for the Supreme Court’s majority, emphasized that the statute’s present-tense phrasing points courts toward the family’s current living arrangement rather than speculative future projections. She noted that basing decisions on unexpired future phases risks undermining the relocation presumption in phased plans—particularly where increases in residential time depend on conditions such as completion of domestic violence counseling or supervised visitation. These concerns were echoed in briefs filed by the Northwest Justice Project and the King County Bar Association’s Domestic Violence Legal Advocacy Project.

Justice G. Helen Whitener penned the dissent, joined by Justices Charles Johnson, Sheryl Gordon McCloud, and Salvador Mungia. The dissent maintained that a parenting plan functions as a forward-looking directive and that residential time should be computed across all phases, including those automatically triggered in the future.

Whitener cautioned that the court’s newly established standard might lock in a presumption benefiting one parent—despite notice being given just one day before a scheduled parenting-time transition—labeling such an outcome inequitable.

Justices noted the trial judge’s detailed observations that T.W. shares strong emotional connections with both guardians and receives consistently high-quality care from each.

The decision stops short of determining whether Hauk can ultimately move with her daughter, instead remanding the matter due to gaps in the existing evidence. Specifically, the Supreme Court pointed out that the record lacks the exact date Hauk delivered her relocation notification and that the trial court never ruled on whether Wuesthoff met the 45-percent-custody benchmark under the current phase, especially after factoring in holiday visitation as he had urged.

Kitsap County Superior Court will now resume oversight to complete the missing determinations.

Should the presumption be affirmed, the trial court must conduct a fresh evidentiary hearing assessing the child’s present situation, accounting for developments since the appeal began.

Republish this story

Our stories are free to republish, online or in print, under these conditions:

  • Credit The Real Olympic Herald and the author, and include a link to this story.
  • Edits may be made for style, length, or to refresh time references.
  • For digital republication, use our canonical URL to ensure proper attribution in search results.
  • The story may not be sold or leveraged primarily for advertising purposes.

Copy story HTML

Questions? Contact us.