Attorney reviewed by Sara Kim, a Washington family law attorney and co-founder of Blair Kim Moeller, PLLC. Last updated October 13, 2026.
A Washington parenting plan is a court order, and a parent who refuses to follow it can be held in contempt. The statute deems a refusal to perform the duties in a parenting plan bad faith, and a Division One decision on September 21, 2026 reversed a superior court that left several of one parent's contempt allegations undecided.
Contempt is the tool a parent uses to enforce a parenting plan or child support order the other parent will not follow. The court has discretion in how it rules on a contempt motion, but it does not have discretion to leave the question unanswered. In In re Marriage of Benedetti, the Court of Appeals sent the case back because the superior court misread the parenting plan and never fully decided whether the father was in contempt.
What Contempt Does in a Family Case
Contempt in a family case is a court finding that a parent failed in bad faith to comply with a parenting plan or support order. It carries remedies designed to compel compliance and to compensate the other parent. It is a civil enforcement tool, not a criminal charge.
Under RCW 26.09.160, a parent's refusal to perform the duties provided in a parenting plan, or to pay ordered child support, "shall be deemed bad faith and shall be punished by the court by holding the party in contempt." The parent bringing the motion must prove the noncompliance. Where the violation concerns the residential provisions, the statute requires specific remedies: make-up residential time, the moving parent's court costs and reasonable attorney fees, and a civil penalty of at least $100. The court may also order jail for a parent who is able to comply but will not. A parent is presumed able to comply unless he or she proves otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.
The family law attorneys at Blair Kim Moeller bring and defend these motions for parents across King and Snohomish Counties, because a parenting plan that cannot be enforced offers little protection to the parent who relies on it.
A Court May Rule Either Way, but It Must Rule
The mother in Benedetti moved for contempt after the father failed to pay his share of the children's expenses and, she alleged, fell short of other parenting plan and support obligations. A commissioner found him in contempt on the support issue but not on the residential provisions. On the father's motion, the superior court revised the commissioner's order and, in doing so, misread the plain language of the agreed plan concerning preschool and kindergarten costs.
Division One reversed on two grounds. The superior court misinterpreted the parenting plan, and it failed to decide several of the mother's contempt allegations at all. A trial court has broad discretion in contempt proceedings, but a failure to exercise that discretion is itself an abuse of discretion. A court cannot leave a properly raised allegation unresolved.
A parent whose order is being ignored is often unsure what a court can do about it. The answer depends on what the order says and what the other parent actually did.
Why the Language of the Order Matters
Washington courts strictly construe a parenting plan in a contempt proceeding. The question is what the order actually says, read closely, not what might seem reasonable in hindsight. In Benedetti, the correct reading of the plan on preschool and kindergarten expenses was decisive, and misreading it was reversible error.
For a parent seeking enforcement, the lesson is to tie each alleged violation to the specific language of the parenting plan or child support order and to the other parent's specific conduct. A motion that groups grievances together is weaker than one that requires the court to address each allegation on its own terms. For a parent responding to a motion, the same close reading, together with any evidence of an inability to comply, is the foundation of a defense.
The remedies are what make the effort worthwhile. Make-up time restores the residential time a parent actually lost, the award of fees and costs shifts the expense of the motion to the parent who made it necessary, and the civil penalty and the possibility of jail give the court real leverage over a parent who can comply but chooses not to.
