Tulalip Tribal Court starts with the individual child, not a preset split of parenting time. The court looks at the child’s safety, relationships, stability, and connections to family, community, and culture. It applies the Tulalip Co-Parenting Code, not Washington’s parenting-plan statute.
Do not build the case around labels such as “primary parent,” “50/50,” or “full custody.” Explain what schedule and decision-making structure will work for this child, why it will work, and what evidence supports it.
When can Tulalip Tribal Court hear a co-parenting case?
Tulalip Tribal Code § 4.20.310 provides several bases for jurisdiction. The court may hear a case involving an Indian child who resides or is domiciled on the Tulalip Reservation. Jurisdiction may also exist when the child is a Tulalip member or eligible for membership, regardless of residence, or when a parent is an enrolled Tulalip member.
The court may establish a co-parenting plan in a stand-alone case or as part of another qualifying matter, including a dissolution, legal separation, parentage case, or domestic-violence protection-order proceeding. Nonparent cases follow different provisions and should not be treated as ordinary disputes between two legal parents.
Once the court enters a co-parenting judgment, the code gives it exclusive continuing jurisdiction over that judgment. Existing cases and orders therefore matter. A parent should identify every prior tribal, state, or other court proceeding before asking for a new order.
What is the court’s central principle?
TTC § 4.20.320 puts the child at the center of the case. It directs the court to protect the child’s safety, preserve important attachments, promote permanence and stability, maintain community and cultural ties, and support healthy relationships. It also encourages frequent contact with fit parents, shared parental rights and responsibilities when appropriate, agreements, and less high-conflict litigation.
Read those goals together. Frequent contact does not override safety. Stability does not require the court to ignore the child’s cultural and extended-family connections. The court may encourage agreement, but the agreement still has to serve the child.
Does Tulalip presume a 50/50 schedule?
The Co-Parenting Code doesn’t make equal time the automatic result. The court must consider the facts and enter written findings based on the child-centered standard and the relevant statutory factors.
An equal schedule may work when the parents live close enough, can manage school and activities, communicate safely, and have both been actively caring for the child. It may not work when distance, work schedules, conflict, safety concerns, medical needs, or the child’s developmental needs make frequent exchanges harmful or hard to manage.
Ask what schedule gives this child dependable care, meaningful relationships, and the least avoidable disruption.
What factors does the court consider?
TTC § 4.20.420 contains the full list. For case preparation, the factors can be grouped by the issues they address.
1. Safety and protection from harm
The court considers abuse, neglect, family violence, dangerous conduct, and other risks to the child or a parent. Safety issues can affect residential time, exchanges, communication, supervision, and legal decision-making.
Be specific about a safety concern. State what happened, when it happened, who observed it, how it affected the child, whether it is continuing, and what protection you are asking for. Police reports, protection orders, treatment records that may lawfully be used, witness testimony, photographs, and dated communications usually tell the court more than broad accusations.
The code also contains a separate section, TTC § 4.20.430, addressing denial or restrictions of parenting time or decision-making. When a restriction may apply, the court needs evidence tied to the statutory concern and a proposed structure that protects the child without being broader than necessary.
2. The child’s relationships and each parent’s caregiving history
The court looks at the child’s attachment to each parent and to siblings, extended family, and other important people. It also considers the history of who performed day-to-day parenting tasks.
Saying “I have always been the primary parent” does not prove that history. Explain who handled school, homework, medical care, daycare, and transportation. Identify the parent who knew the child’s routines, medications, teachers, and activities. Work schedules matter too, as does each parent’s support for the child’s relationship with the other parent and extended family.
A simple calendar covering several representative months can be more persuasive than pages of character attacks.
3. Stability, adjustment, and daily life
The court considers permanence and stability, the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community, the parents’ geographic proximity, and the practical effect of the proposed schedule.
A plan has to work during an ordinary school week. Account for school start times, transportation, childcare, activities, homework, medical needs, holidays, and the parents’ actual work shifts. A schedule that looks equal on paper may cause constant travel or missed school. Fewer exchanges may help one child but unnecessarily limit another child’s relationship with a parent.
The proposal should explain both ordinary weeks and predictable exceptions. That includes fishing seasons, military obligations, rotating shifts, extended-family events, ceremonies, and school breaks when those facts matter to the family.
4. Tribal affiliation, culture, community, and extended family
Tulalip’s code expressly includes tribal affiliation, cultural activities, community connections, and extended-family relationships in the child-centered analysis. The court considers them as part of the plan, not as an afterthought.
A parent can help the court by describing the child’s actual connections. Explain the child’s enrollment or eligibility and what remains to complete enrollment. Describe relationships with grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins, and other caregivers. The court may also need information about language, ceremonies, community events, fishing, gathering, school, health care, behavioral-health care, or social services tied to the community.
Then explain how the proposed plan will preserve those connections in ordinary life. Details about who the child sees, what the child does, and how often it happens are more useful than broad claims about culture or community.
Describe the child’s actual connections. Explain who the child sees, what the child does, how often it happens, and how the proposed plan will allow that involvement to continue.
5. Each parent’s ability to support the child and reduce conflict
The court considers the parents’ ability to communicate, cooperate, make decisions, protect the child from adult conflict, and support important relationships. It may also consider conduct that unnecessarily increases litigation.
The parents don’t have to like each other. They need a structure that keeps the child out of the dispute. A single written communication method, clear exchange terms, access to school and medical records, and a process for urgent decisions give the court concrete options.
Messages that are brief, factual, and focused on the child generally help. Messages that insult, threaten, relitigate the relationship, or force the child to carry information generally hurt.
6. The child’s needs, health, and preferences
The court may consider the child’s physical, emotional, and developmental needs, the health of the people involved, and the child’s preference when the child has sufficient age and maturity. A child’s preference is one factor, not an automatic choice of household.
Parents should be careful not to question a child repeatedly, ask the child to choose, or turn the child into a witness. When the child’s views truly need to be presented, the court can determine an appropriate method.
How does the court decide legal decision-making?
Parenting time and legal decision-making are related but separate. Under TTC § 4.20.410, the court may give decision-making authority jointly, assign it to one parent, or divide responsibility by subject.
Major subjects can include education, health care, religion or spirituality, and daycare. The order may also address access to records, tax claims, and distributions connected to tribal membership.
A parent asking for sole decision-making should explain the problem it is meant to solve. Evidence may include a history of unsafe decisions, refusal to communicate, interference with necessary care, family violence, or repeated inability to reach time-sensitive decisions. A disagreement by itself does not always show that joint decision-making is impossible.
What should a proposed co-parenting plan include?
Write enough detail to prevent predictable disputes, but keep the plan workable. Start with the regular residential schedule and the rules for holidays, school breaks, birthdays, and cultural or community events. State where exchanges occur, who provides transportation, how late arrivals are handled, and what telephone or video contact is allowed.
The plan should also cover access to school, medical, dental, and activity information. Address major and emergency decisions, travel notice, and how the parents will communicate safely. Any supervision, sobriety, or other safety provision must be supported by the evidence. Include a practical method for resolving future disagreements.
Be honest about logistics. If a parent works nights, travels, fishes seasonally, serves in the military, or relies on relatives for regular care, explain how the child will be cared for.
Does the court encourage agreements or mediation?
Yes. The Co-Parenting Code encourages early consideration of dispute resolution, including yəhaw, mediation, arbitration, and judicial settlement. The court may approve an agreed plan without a contested hearing if it can find that the agreement serves the child’s interests.
Safety comes first. The code places limits on ordering dispute resolution when abuse or neglect restrictions are at issue. In some circumstances the protected party must request the process, safety must be addressed, and the neutral must have appropriate domestic-violence training.
An agreement works best when both parents understand it and can follow it in real life. Cover the issues likely to cause another dispute. Vague exchange terms, decision-making rules, or safety provisions can bring the family back to court.
What evidence helps most?
Use evidence that connects a fact to the child and the order you are requesting. A caregiving calendar, school records, work schedules, and transportation information may show how a proposed schedule will work. Medical, therapy, or childcare records may help when they can lawfully be disclosed.
Use focused messages rather than an unfiltered data dump. Records of cultural and extended-family involvement may support those parts of the plan. A safety claim may require police, protection-order, or treatment records and witnesses with direct knowledge. The proposed co-parenting plan should tie the evidence to the order being requested.
The evidence should help the court understand how the child will live under the proposed plan. Proof that the other parent was a bad spouse may have little value unless it connects to parenting, safety, or the child’s needs.
What is the best way to prepare?
Draft the proposed order first. Write down the schedule, decision-making structure, safety terms, and cultural and family connections you believe the child needs. Then match each part of the proposal to the facts and documents that support it.
This keeps the case focused. It also separates serious child-centered issues from disagreements that a clear rule or better communication may resolve.
Current as of August 2026. Tribal codes, court rules, forms, and fees can change. Review the current Tulalip Tribal Code and confirm filing requirements with the Court Clerk before relying on a deadline or fee.
Part of our Tulalip Tribal Court family-law series: Can Tulalip Tribal Court Hear My Divorce? and What Happens From Filing Through the First Tulalip Co-Parenting Hearing?
Law Offices of Daniel Ehrlich, Everett. Family law in Snohomish, Island, King, and Skagit Counties. (425) 954-5578.
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Every case is different. A lawyer should review the current code and the facts of your case before you rely on this information.
