I thought I had said it, but I can see how you would be confused by my response.
Again...while I understand and appreciate the rationale behind the law, I think that it can be successfully argued that it does NOT apply in this case.
In the majority of "custody cases"...whether it is part of a divorce or unmarried parents, the court generally finds that BOTH parents are "suitable custodians" or other such language and as such, changes in their circumstances would not effect custody per se. The exception to this naturally is that by virture of the children living with the custodial parent, some changes could/would have a detrimental effect on the child(ren) and/or their relationship with the other parent.
BUT in this case...custody was granted to the grandparents because the parents were not "suitable custodians" and thus RCW 26.09.260(2) is being applied improperly.
But, hopefully in this case maybe the grandparents will voluntarily start sharing more time now that he meets the standard for a fit parent now.
Doubtful. 1) The grandparents dropped their suit to relocate once they realized they could lose custody. 2) And they clearly didn't like the initial GAL's report and argued considerably for a "second opinion". Hopefully, ya'll's law will allow the father to file for a modification of parenting time, since it's doubtful he would get any extra time without it.