Domestic Violence and Custody in Washington: RCW 26.09.191 Restrictions Explained

When domestic violence enters a Washington custody case, the legal framework shifts dramatically. The court is no longer simply weighing which schedule works best for the family. It is applying a specific statutory framework — RCW 26.09.191 — that requires restrictions on the offending parent's residential time and decision-making authority. Some of these restrictions are mandatory. The judge has no discretion to waive them.

Understanding the distinction between mandatory and discretionary restrictions, and how recent case law has tightened these rules, is critical for any parent navigating a custody dispute where safety is a concern.

Mandatory Restrictions Under RCW 26.09.191

When the court finds that a parent has engaged in certain behaviors, it is legally required to restrict that parent's residential time and to prohibit joint decision-making. The court has no discretion here — the restrictions must be imposed. These mandatory triggers include:

• Willful abandonment that continues for an extended period
• Physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child
• A history of acts of domestic violence as defined under RCW 7.105 (formerly RCW 26.50), or an assault or sexual assault that causes grievous bodily harm or fear of such harm

When any of these findings are made, the court cannot order joint decision-making. The offending parent cannot share authority over education, healthcare, or religious upbringing decisions. The court must also restrict that parent's residential time — either by limiting it, requiring supervision, or imposing specific conditions designed to protect the child.

Additionally, the court cannot order or require the parties to use alternative dispute resolution (mediation, arbitration, or counseling) when a mandatory restriction applies. This protects victims from being forced into negotiation settings with their abuser.

Discretionary Restrictions

A second category of behaviors gives the court the option — but not the obligation — to restrict a parent's time. These discretionary grounds include:

• Neglect or substantial nonperformance of parenting functions
• A long-term emotional or physical impairment that interferes with the parent's ability to care for the child
• A long-term substance abuse problem that interferes with parenting
• The absence of an emotional relationship between the parent and child
• The abusive use of conflict by a parent that creates a danger of serious psychological harm to the child
• A parent's withholding of the child from the other parent without good cause
• Any other factor the court finds relevant to the child's safety

With discretionary restrictions, the court weighs the severity of the behavior, whether it is ongoing, and whether conditions (such as substance abuse treatment completion or supervised visitation) can adequately protect the child.

The 2026 Thiess Decision: Joint Decision-Making Is Flatly Prohibited

In January 2026, the Washington Court of Appeals issued a critical ruling in In re Marriage of Thiess that clarified — and tightened — the application of RCW 26.09.191.

The trial court had found that both parents committed domestic violence: the mother committed physical abuse and the father committed emotional abuse. Reasoning that it would be illogical to restrict both parents, the trial judge awarded joint decision-making.

The Court of Appeals reversed. The appellate court held that under RCW 26.09.191, joint decision-making is prohibited if any parent has a history of domestic violence — even when both parents have committed acts of domestic violence. The trial court must assign sole decision-making authority to one parent. That rule now lives in RCW 26.09.191(5). RCW 26.09.191(6)(b) lets the court decline sole decision-making only if it makes express written findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that applying the limitation would be contrary to the child's best interests; a domestic violence finding still creates a rebuttable presumption of sole decision-making.

However, Thiess drew an important distinction: the prohibition on joint decision-making does not automatically preclude a 50/50 residential schedule. A court can still order equal residential time if it makes specific written findings that neither parent's conduct impacted the child and that the probability of recurring abuse is remote.

This ruling matters because it closed a loophole. Before Thiess, some trial courts used mutual findings of domestic violence as a justification for treating neither parent as the offending party. That approach is no longer available.

The Updated FL All Family 140 Form and Attachment A

The July 2025 revision of Washington's mandatory parenting plan form (FL All Family 140) added specific attachments for documenting 191 restrictions:

Attachment A (Limitations) consolidates all domestic violence findings, substance abuse determinations, and mental health limitations in a single, structured attachment. This replaced the previous approach where limitations were scattered throughout the plan.

Attachment B (Sex Offenses) is required if a parent or household member has a history of sex offenses or child abuse under RCW 26.09.192.

Attachment C (Supervised Visitation Rules) establishes clear rules for supervised contact — the designated supervisor, scheduling, and cost allocation.

The updated form also includes a "No Limitations" Five-Factor Test: if a safety concern exists but the court decides not to impose restrictions, the judge must make five specific written findings on the record explaining why the child is safe and why the risk of recurrence is remote.

Parental Alienation in Washington

Washington courts recognize parental alienation — where one parent systematically undermines the child's relationship with the other — as the "abusive use of conflict" under RCW 26.09.191(4)(c)(v). This is a discretionary ground for restricting the alienating parent's time.

Proving alienation requires more than showing the other parent says negative things. Courts look for patterns: refusing to follow the residential schedule without justification, intercepting or monitoring the child's communications with the other parent, making repeated false allegations of abuse, or telling the child that the other parent does not love them.

The standard is high because courts must distinguish between genuine alienation and a child's legitimate reluctance to spend time with a parent who has been abusive or neglectful. A parent who restricts contact because of actual safety concerns is not engaging in alienation, even if the other parent characterizes it that way.

When Self-Help Is Not Enough

Domestic violence custody cases sit at the boundary of what a self-help guide can safely address. If you are experiencing active domestic violence, your immediate priority is safety — contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-7233) or a local domestic violence advocacy program. Washington Legal Aid and county-specific DV advocacy organizations can provide free legal assistance for protective orders.

For cases where domestic violence is historical but documented — a past incident that is relevant to the custody determination — a process-navigation guide can help you organize your evidence and understand how the court will apply RCW 26.09.191 to your situation.

How the Guide Helps

The Washington Child Custody & Parenting Plan Guide explains how mandatory and discretionary restrictions work under RCW 26.09.191, how to document safety concerns for the court, and how to complete the new Attachment A limitations section of the FL All Family 140 form. It also includes a safety planning checklist and references to county-level domestic violence resources across Washington.

See more Washington guides →