Form FL Visits488 "Final Order and Findings on Petition for Visits" - Washington

What Is Form FL Visits488?

This is a legal form that was released by the Washington Superior Court - a government authority operating within Washington. As of today, no separate filing guidelines for the form are provided by the issuing department.

Form Details:

  • Released on March 1, 2020;
  • The latest edition provided by the Washington Superior Court;
  • Easy to use and ready to print;
  • Quick to customize;
  • Compatible with most PDF-viewing applications;
  • Fill out the form in our online filing application.

Download a printable version of Form FL Visits488 by clicking the link below or browse more documents and templates provided by the Washington Superior Court.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Download Form FL Visits488 "Final Order and Findings on Petition for Visits" - Washington

101 times
Rate (4.8 / 5) 5 votes
Superior Court of Washington, County of
In re visits with:
Children:
No.
Final Order and Findings on Petition for
Petitioner/s (person/s who started this case):
Visits
(ORDYMT, OGV)
Respondent/s (parent/s, legal custodian, and anyone
with court-ordered residential time):
Clerk’s action required: 14,
[ ] 1
Final Order and Findings on Petition for Visits
1.
Money Judgment Summary
[ ] No money judgment is ordered.
15
[ ] Summarize any money judgment from section
in the table below.
Judgment for
Debtor’s name
Creditor’s name
Amount
Interest
(person who must
(person who must
pay money)
be paid)
Lawyer fees
Costs
$
$
Yearly Interest Rate: _______% (12% unless otherwise listed)
Lawyer (name):
represents (name):
Lawyer (name):
represents (name):
Chapter 26.11 RCW
Final Order and Findings on
(03/2020)
Petition for Visits
FL Visits 488
p. 1 of 9
Superior Court of Washington, County of
In re visits with:
Children:
No.
Final Order and Findings on Petition for
Petitioner/s (person/s who started this case):
Visits
(ORDYMT, OGV)
Respondent/s (parent/s, legal custodian, and anyone
with court-ordered residential time):
Clerk’s action required: 14,
[ ] 1
Final Order and Findings on Petition for Visits
1.
Money Judgment Summary
[ ] No money judgment is ordered.
15
[ ] Summarize any money judgment from section
in the table below.
Judgment for
Debtor’s name
Creditor’s name
Amount
Interest
(person who must
(person who must
pay money)
be paid)
Lawyer fees
Costs
$
$
Yearly Interest Rate: _______% (12% unless otherwise listed)
Lawyer (name):
represents (name):
Lawyer (name):
represents (name):
Chapter 26.11 RCW
Final Order and Findings on
(03/2020)
Petition for Visits
FL Visits 488
p. 1 of 9
2.
Basis for order
(check all that apply):
[ ] Parties’ agreement.
[ ] Order on Motion for Default signed on (date):
.
[ ] Hearing on (date):
.
The following people were at the hearing:
3.
Children covered by order
Child’s Name
Age
Child’s Name
Age
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
 Findings & Conclusions
4.
Juvenile Court case
[ ] There is no open Juvenile Court case involving child custody or out-of-home
placement for the children.
[ ] There is an open Juvenile Court case involving child custody or out-of-home
placement for the children in this county under case number:
.
The court handling that case has signed an order allowing this court to proceed with
this case about visits.
5.
(RCW 26.27.201 – .221, .231, .261, .271)
Jurisdiction over the children
[ ] This court cannot decide this case for these children (names):
because this court does not
have jurisdiction over them. The Petition should be dismissed as to these children.
[ ] This court can decide this case for these children because (check all that apply; if a
box applies to all of the children, you may write “the children” instead of listing names):
[ ] Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction – A Washington court has already made a
parenting plan, residential schedule or custody order for the children, and the court
still has authority to make other orders for (children’s names):
.
[ ] Home state jurisdiction – Washington is the children’s home state because
(check all that apply):
[ ] (Children’s names):
lived in Washington with a parent or someone acting as a parent for at least the
6 months just before this case was filed, or if the children were less than 6
months old when the case was filed, they had lived in Washington with a parent
or someone acting as a parent since birth.
Chapter 26.11 RCW
Final Order and Findings on
(03/2020)
Petition for Visits
FL Visits 488
p. 2 of 9
[ ] There were times the children were not in Washington in the 6 months just
before this case was filed (or since birth if they were less than 6 months
old), but those were temporary absences.
[ ] (Children’s names):
do not
live in Washington right now, but Washington was the children’s home state
sometime in the 6 months just before this case was filed, and a parent or
someone acting as a parent of the children still lives in Washington.
[ ] (Children’s names):
do not
have another home state.
[ ] No home state or home state declined – No court of any other state (or tribe)
has the jurisdiction to make decisions for (children’s names):
,
or a court in the children’s home state (or tribe) decided it is better to have this
case in Washington and:
The children and a parent or someone acting as a parent have ties to
Washington beyond just living here; and
There is substantial evidence about the children’s care, protection, education and
relationships in this state.
[ ] Other state declined – The courts in other states (or tribes) that might be
(children’s names):
’s home state
have refused to take this case because it is better to have this case in Washington.
[ ] Other reason (specify):
6.
Hearing set after review
The Court found that a hearing should be held in an Order After Review of Petition for
Visits (form FL Visits 486) signed by the court on (date):
.
[ ] Does not apply. These findings and conclusions are agreed to by all parties.
7.
First petition
Is this the first Petition for Visits filed by Petitioner for these children?
[ ] No. The Petition must be denied.
[ ] Yes.
This conclusion is based on the following facts:
8.
Family relationship
“Parent” means a legal parent whose rights have not been terminated, relinquished, or declared not to exist.
Is Petitioner a type of relative who is allowed by law to petition for visits?
[ ] No. The Petition must be denied.
Chapter 26.11 RCW
Final Order and Findings on
(03/2020)
Petition for Visits
FL Visits 488
p. 3 of 9
[ ] Yes. Petitioner is related to the children or the children’s parent as follows (check
all that apply, if more than one petitioner, specify each petitioner’s relationship):
[ ] Blood relative, including those of half-blood, and including first cousins, second
cousins, nephews or nieces, and persons of preceding generations as denoted
by prefixes of grand, great, or great-great, or
[ ] That person’s spouse, even after the marriage is terminated or
[ ] One of those relatives of any half sibling of the child.
[ ] Stepfather, stepmother, stepbrother, and stepsister, or
[ ] That person’s spouse, even after the marriage is terminated or
[ ] One of those relatives of any half sibling of the child.
[ ] A person who legally adopts a child or the child's parent as well as the
biological and other legally adopted children of such persons, and other
relatives of the adoptive parents in accordance with state law, or
[ ] That person’s spouse, even after the marriage is terminated or
[ ] One of those relatives of any half sibling of the child.
[ ] Extended family members, as defined by the law or custom of an Indian child's
tribe or, in the absence of such law or custom, a person who has reached the
age of eighteen and who is the Indian child's grandparent, aunt or uncle,
brother or sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law, niece or nephew, first or
second cousin, or stepparent who provides care in the family abode on a
twenty-four hour basis to an Indian child as defined in 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1903(4).
This conclusion is based on the following facts:
9.
Ongoing and substantial relationship
Does Petitioner have an ongoing and substantial relationship with the children for at least
two years, or, if a child is under two, for at least half the child’s life and with a shared
expectation of and desire for an ongoing relationship?
[ ] No. The Petition must be denied.
[ ] Yes.
This conclusion is based on the following facts (describe whether Petitioner’s relationship
with the children was formed and sustained through interaction, companionship, and
mutuality of interest and affection, without expectation of financial compensation and with
substantial continuity):
Chapter 26.11 RCW
Final Order and Findings on
(03/2020)
Petition for Visits
FL Visits 488
p. 4 of 9
10. Risk of harm
The Court presumes that a fit parent’s decision to deny visitation is in the best interest of the
children and does not create a likelihood of harm or a substantial risk of harm to the
children. Considering Respondent/s’ reasons for denying visits, has Petitioner overcome
this presumption by clear and convincing evidence to prove that the children are likely to
suffer harm or a substantial risk of harm if visitation is denied?
[ ] No. The Petition must be denied.
[ ] Yes.
This conclusion is based on the following facts (describe why and how the children would
or would not likely be harmed):
11. Best interest factors
[ ] Does not apply because the court found no risk of harm as described in section 10.
The Petition must be denied.
[ ] The court has considered the following factors about whether or not visits are in the
children’s best interest:
a. Current relationship: The court considered the love, affection, and strength of
the current relationship between the child and Petitioner and how the relationship
is beneficial to the child.
The court finds:
b. Prior relationship: The court considered the length and quality of the prior
relationship between the child and Petitioner before Respondent denied visitation,
including the role performed by Petitioner and the emotional ties that existed
between the child and Petitioner.
The court finds:
Chapter 26.11 RCW
Final Order and Findings on
(03/2020)
Petition for Visits
FL Visits 488
p. 5 of 9
Page of 9