Fill and Sign the Following People Attended Form

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (FNFCL) - Page 1 of 4 WPF CU 03.0340 (9/2000) - CR 52; RCW 26.09.240; 26.10.160(3) SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF In re the Custody of: (DOB) Child(ren),Petitioner(s), and Respondent(s). NO. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (FNFCL) I. BASIS FOR FINDINGS The findings are based on: [ ] agreement. [ ] an order of default entered on _______________________________ [Date]. [ ] trial. The following people attended: [ ] Petitioner. [ ] Petitioner’s Lawyer. [ ] Respondent. [ ] Respondent’s Lawyer. [ ] Other: II. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon the basis of the court record, the court FINDS: 2.1 CHILDREN WITH WHOM VISITATION IS SOUGHT. The petitioner is seeking visitation rights with the following child(ren): 2.2 BASIS OF JURISDICTION. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (FNFCL) - Page 2 of 4 WPF CU 03.0340 (9/2000) - CR 52; RCW 26.09.240; 26.10.160(3) [ ] This state is the home state of the child because[ ] the child lived in Washington with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately preceding the commencement of this proceeding. [ ] the child is less than six months old and has lived in Washington with a parent or a person acting as parent since birth. [ ] any absences from Washington have been only temporary. [ ] Washington was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of this proceeding and the child’s absence from the state is because of removal or retention by a person claiming custody or for other reasons. [ ] It is in the best interest of the child that this court assume jurisdiction beca use the child and the parents or the child and at least one contestant have significant connecti on with the state; there is substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future ca re, protection, training and personal relationships in the state; and [ ] The child has no home state elsewhere. [ ] The child’s home state has declined to exercise jurisdiction. [ ] The child is physically present in this state and has been abandoned or it is nec essary in an emergency to protect the child because he or she has been subjected to or threate ned with mistreatment or abuse. [ ] No other state has jurisdiction or a state with jurisdiction has declined to exe rcise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum and it is in t he best interest of the child for this court to assume jurisdiction . [ ] This court has continuing jurisdiction because the court has previously made a child custody or parenting plan determination in this matter and Washington remains the residence of the children or any contestant. [ ] Other: 2.3 BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN. The court’s conclusions concerning the best interests of the child(ren) are based on the following facts: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (FNFCL) - Page 3 of 4 WPF CU 03.0340 (9/2000) - CR 52; RCW 26.09.240; 26.10.160(3) 2.4 LIMITATIONS ON PARENTAL VISITATION.[ ] There are no reasons for limiting visitation of either parent. [ ] The following reasons exist for limiting visitation of the[ ] father [ ] mother. [ ] Willful abandonment that continues for an extended period of time or substantial refusal to perform parenting functions. [ ] Physical, sexual or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child. [ ] A history of acts of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010(1) or an assault or sexual assault which causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm. [ ] other: [ ] Limitations on visitation with the children will not adequately protect the c hildren from the harm that could result if the children have contact with the [ ] father [ ] mother. [ ] Contact between the [ ] father [ ] mother and the children will not cause physica l, sexual, or emotional abuse or harm to the children and the probability that the parent’s harm ful or abusive conduct will recur is so remote that it would not be in the children’s best interest to apply the limitations of RCW 26.10.160(1)(a) and (b). [ ] The [ ] father’s [ ] mother’s conduct did not have an impact on the children. 2.5 OTHER. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The court makes the following conclusions of law from the foregoing findings of fact: 3.1 JURISDICTION. The court has jurisdiction over the children. 3.2 DISPOSITION. It is in the best interests of the child(ren): [ ] The request for visitation should be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (FNFCL) - Page 4 of 4 WPF CU 03.0340 (9/2000) - CR 52; RCW 26.09.240; 26.10.160(3) [ ] The request should be denied. [ ] The petition should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in paragraph 2.3 above. 3.3 VISITATION. Visitation should be ordered as follows: 3.4 OTHER: Dated: JUDGE/COMMISSIONER Presented by: Approved by: Notice of presentation waived: SignatureSignature Print or Type Name Print or Type Name