Domestic Violence and Child Custody in Washington

A Washington parent with a documented history of domestic violence does not automatically lose time with their child. That is the practical lesson from a June 2026 decision out of Division Two of the Court of Appeals, and it captures something that surprises many parents in the middle of a custody fight. Domestic violence and child custody in Washington are governed by a statute that treats a domestic violence history as a serious limiting factor the court must weigh, and that same statute gives judges room to preserve a parent’s residential time when the underlying conduct has genuinely been addressed.

The case, In re Parentage of L.R.A., is unpublished, so it does not set binding precedent. It still offers a clear window into how trial judges apply the parenting plan statute when both parents have troubled histories, and how the Court of Appeals reviews those calls. If you are working through a parenting plan where abuse allegations are part of the picture, the family law team at Blair & Kim can help you understand where you stand.

How domestic violence and child custody in Washington fit together under RCW 26.09.191

Washington sorts the reasons a court can restrict a parent’s role in a child’s life into two groups under former RCW 26.09.191. Some are mandatory. A history of acts of domestic violence, as defined in RCW 7.105.010, falls into the mandatory group, which means a court that finds such a history must ordinarily limit that parent’s residential time and cannot award that parent joint decision-making authority. Others are discretionary, including a long-term impairment that interferes with parenting, an abusive use of conflict, and withholding a child from the other parent without good cause.

The mandatory label is not the end of the analysis. Former RCW 26.09.191(2)(n) lets a court decline to impose the otherwise-required limitation if it makes express findings that contact will not cause physical, sexual, or emotional harm to the child and that the risk of the abusive conduct recurring is remote enough that limits would not serve the child’s best interests. A court can also decline the limitation if it finds the parent’s conduct did not affect the child. That exception is what decided this appeal.

Why the trial court’s refusal to find a domestic violence history was harmless error

The father in L.R.A. had a real record. An earlier case had already found he had a history of domestic violence. Child Protective Services had entered a neglect finding tied to a 2019 incident, and family members described violent and threatening behavior. On that evidence, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to find the father had a history of domestic violence at all. The finding should have been made.

The error did not change the outcome. The trial court had ordered the father to complete a domestic violence evaluation, a chemical dependency evaluation, and every course of treatment those evaluations recommended, and he had done all of it. The judge found him in full compliance, credible on the stand, and settled in a stable home, and expressed no concern about his parenting. Reading the oral ruling alongside the written findings, the appellate court concluded the trial judge had effectively performed the RCW 26.09.191(2)(n) analysis even without quoting the statute’s language: the father’s remediation made the risk of recurrence remote, so a mandatory limitation was not warranted. A missing finding that would not have altered the result is harmless.

Abuse allegations, whether raised against you or by you, shape almost every part of a parenting plan case. Blair & Kim’s family law team works with parents throughout the Seattle and Bellevue area to build the kind of record a court relies on when it decides residential time.

What made the difference between the two parents

The mother in the case had also been found to have a history of domestic violence, but her situation diverged from the father’s in a way the court treated as decisive. She had not completed the treatment or evaluations that might have addressed her limiting factors, and the trial court found additional problems: an abusive use of conflict it described as egregious, a pattern of vexatious litigation, and unaddressed mental health concerns affecting her ability to parent. She was limited to professionally supervised residential time and ordered to complete domestic violence treatment, a full psychological evaluation, and a high-conflict parenting seminar before her schedule would be reviewed.

The contrast is the heart of the decision. Two parents, both with a domestic violence history, ended up in very different places, not because the court excused the father’s past but because he had done the work the court required and she had not yet started. For anyone weighing how domestic violence and child custody in Washington play out in real cases, that distinction matters more than the label attached to past conduct. A court looks hard at what a parent has done since. You can read more about how these issues surface in domestic violence and family law cases.

The 2025 changes to RCW 26.09.191 this case did not apply

The court decided L.R.A. under the version of the statute in effect when the trial court ruled. The Legislature significantly amended RCW 26.09.191 and RCW 26.09.187 effective July 27, 2025, and one addition is directly relevant to a case like this. New RCW 26.09.191(7)(a) addresses situations where mandatory limitations apply to both parents. It permits the court to make an exception, but it requires detailed written findings comparing the risk of harm each parent poses to the child, along with an explanation of the limitations placed on each parent, including any decision not to restrict a parent.

Under that newer framework, a trial court handling facts like these would need to spell out the comparative-risk analysis on paper rather than leave it to be inferred from an oral ruling. Parents with a current parenting case should assume the amended statute governs and should expect the court to document its reasoning about each parent in writing.

Where domestic violence findings in a custody case come from

A domestic violence limiting factor rarely appears out of nowhere. It often traces back to a criminal case, a Child Protective Services finding, or a civil protection order entered in an earlier proceeding, any of which can supply the record a family court later relies on. In L.R.A., the father’s history included a protection order and a prior judicial finding from a separate case. Parents sometimes do not realize that a protection order obtained years earlier can resurface as evidence in a parenting plan trial. If domestic violence is part of your family’s history in any form, it is worth understanding how those records may be used before you are in front of a judge.

Answers to common questions about domestic violence and Washington parenting plans

Does a domestic violence finding automatically mean supervised visitation in Washington?

No. A history of domestic violence is a mandatory limiting factor under former RCW 26.09.191, but the statute gives the court discretion to decline the usual restriction when it makes express findings that contact will not harm the child and that the risk of the conduct recurring is remote. Whether a court exercises that discretion depends on the specific evidence, including what the parent has done to address the conduct.

Can a parent with a past domestic violence history still get unsupervised time with their child?

It is possible. In the L.R.A. case, a father with a documented domestic violence history kept unrestricted residential time because he had completed court-ordered evaluations and treatment and the court found the risk of recurrence remote. Outcomes turn on the facts of each case, and completing required treatment does not guarantee any particular result.

What is the difference between a mandatory and a discretionary limiting factor?

Under former RCW 26.09.191, mandatory limiting factors, including a history of domestic violence, generally require the court to restrict a parent’s residential time and decision-making unless a statutory exception applies. Discretionary factors, such as an abusive use of conflict or a long-term impairment that interferes with parenting, allow but do not require the court to impose limits.

How did Washington’s 2025 changes to the parenting plan statute affect these cases?

Amendments to RCW 26.09.191 effective July 27, 2025 added a framework for cases where mandatory limitations apply to both parents. The court may make an exception, but it must enter detailed written findings comparing the risk each parent poses to the child and explaining the limitations imposed on each. Cases decided under the earlier statute, like L.R.A., were not governed by that requirement.

More answers to questions parents ask about custody, protection orders, and divorce are on our frequently asked questions page.

Talk with Blair & Kim’s family law team about your parenting plan

Domestic violence and child custody in Washington questions rarely have simple answers, and the difference between a workable outcome and a hard one often comes down to preparation and a clear record. Blair & Kim’s family law team represents parents across King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, from Seattle and Bellevue to Tacoma, Everett, and the surrounding communities, in parenting plan disputes that involve abuse allegations on either side. To discuss your situation, contact Blair & Kim or call (206) 622-6562.