goal of a dependency hearing (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

goal of a dependency hearing in Washington

14 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2023 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re the Welfare of Aschauergreen
wash · 1980 · cited in 7 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1998–2023
2 sentences

2023We decline the Department’s invitation, and instead will continue to “plac[e] the burden upon the Department to show good cause by clear and convincing evidence why it should not follow the wishes of the natural parent regarding placement of the child [which] provides additional safeguards of the parent’s right.” Key, 119 Wn.2d at 611 (emphasis added); see also In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689, 697-98 , 611 P.2d 1245 (1980) (“We have repeatedly said that the welfare of the child is the goal of a dependency hearing and we have required that proof be made by evidence that is clear, cogent

2023We decline the Department’s invitation, and instead will continue to “plac[e] the burden upon the Department to show good cause by clear and convincing evidence why it should not follow the wishes of the natural parent regarding placement of the child [which] provides additional safeguards of the parent’s right.” Key, 119 Wn.2d at 611 (emphasis added); see also In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689, 697-98 , 611 P.2d 1245 (1980) (“We have repeatedly said that the welfare of the child is the goal of a dependency hearing and we have required that proof be made by evidence that is clear, cogent

57
Matter of Welfare of Keygreen
wash · 1992 · cited in 5 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2005–2023
2 sentences

2023We decline the Department’s invitation, and instead will continue to “plac[e] the burden upon the Department to show good cause by clear and convincing evidence why it should not follow the wishes of the natural parent regarding placement of the child [which] provides additional safeguards of the parent’s right.” Key, 119 Wn.2d at 611 (emphasis added); see also In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689, 697-98 , 611 P.2d 1245 (1980) (“We have repeatedly said that the welfare of the child is the goal of a dependency hearing and we have required that proof be made by evidence that is clear, cogent

2023We decline the Department’s invitation, and instead will continue to “plac[e] the burden upon the Department to show good cause by clear and convincing evidence why it should not follow the wishes of the natural parent regarding placement of the child [which] provides additional safeguards of the parent’s right.” Key, 119 Wn.2d at 611 (emphasis added); see also In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689, 697-98 , 611 P.2d 1245 (1980) (“We have repeatedly said that the welfare of the child is the goal of a dependency hearing and we have required that proof be made by evidence that is clear, cogent

35
In Re Welfare of Segogreen
wash · 1973 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1976–2000
2 sentences

2000See, e.g., Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 923 , 949 P.2d 1291 (1997) ("As in all matters dealing with the welfare of children, the court must additionally act in the best interests of the child."); Aschauer, *41 93 Wash.2d at 695 , 611 P.2d 1245 ("This court has repeatedly said that the goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests."); In re Sego, 82 Wash.2d 736, 738 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973) ("a child's welfare is the court's primary consideration ... when the rights of parents and

2000See, e.g., Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 923 , 949 P.2d 1291 (1997) ("As in all matters dealing with the welfare of children, the court must additionally act in the best interests of the child."); Aschauer, *41 93 Wash.2d at 695 , 611 P.2d 1245 ("This court has repeatedly said that the goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests."); In re Sego, 82 Wash.2d 736, 738 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973) ("a child's welfare is the court's primary consideration ... when the rights of parents and

24
Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Social & Health Servicesgreen
wash · 1997 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1998–2000
2 sentences

2000See, e.g., Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 923 , 949 P.2d 1291 (1997) ("As in all matters dealing with the welfare of children, the court must additionally act in the best interests of the child."); Aschauer, *41 93 Wash.2d at 695 , 611 P.2d 1245 ("This court has repeatedly said that the goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests."); In re Sego, 82 Wash.2d 736, 738 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973) ("a child's welfare is the court's primary consideration ... when the rights of parents and

1998See, e.g., Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wn.2d 894, 923 , 949 P.2d 1291 (1997) (“As in all matters dealing with the welfare of children, the court must additionally act in the best interests of the child.”); Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d at 695 ) (“This court has repeatedly said that the goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests.”); In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 738 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973) (“a child’s welfare is the court’s primary consideration . . . when the rights of parents and the welfare

22
Coalition for Homeless v. Dshsgreen
wash · 1997 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1998–2000
2 sentences

2000See, e.g., Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 923 , 949 P.2d 1291 (1997) ("As in all matters dealing with the welfare of children, the court must additionally act in the best interests of the child."); Aschauer, *41 93 Wash.2d at 695 , 611 P.2d 1245 ("This court has repeatedly said that the goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests."); In re Sego, 82 Wash.2d 736, 738 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973) ("a child's welfare is the court's primary consideration ... when the rights of parents and

1998See, e.g., Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wn.2d 894, 923 , 949 P.2d 1291 (1997) (“As in all matters dealing with the welfare of children, the court must additionally act in the best interests of the child.”); Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d at 695 ) (“This court has repeatedly said that the goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests.”); In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 738 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973) (“a child’s welfare is the court’s primary consideration . . . when the rights of parents and the welfare

22
In Re the Welfare of Maygreen
washctapp · 1976 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
1 sentence

1976In re Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973); see In re May, 14 Wn.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Frederickson v. Becker green
wash · 1976
2 sentences

2013In re Welfare of Becker, 87 Wn.2d 470, 476 , 553 P.2d 1339 (1976).

2013In re Welfare of Becker, 87 Wn.2d 470, 476 , 553 P.2d 1339 (1976).

41979–2013
Department of Social & Health Services v. Chubb green
wash · 1989
2 sentences

2023The Department relies on this court’s recent holding in W.W.S., but nowhere in W.W.S. did this court suggest a lower standard of proof to determine whether a child should be placed out of the home. 7 The holding in W.W.S. hinged on a statutory 7 The Department also cites to Schermer and In re Dependency of Chubb, 112 Wn.2d 719, 727-29 , 773 P.2d 851 (1989).

2023The Department relies on this court’s recent holding in W.W.S., but nowhere in W.W.S. did this court suggest a lower standard of proof to determine whether a child should be placed out of the home. 7 The holding in W.W.S. hinged on a statutory 7 The Department also cites to Schermer and In re Dependency of Chubb, 112 Wn.2d 719, 727-29 , 773 P.2d 851 (1989).

32023–2023
Scott v. Department of Social & Health Services green
wash · 1993
2 sentences

2005In re Dependency of J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 863 P.2d 1344 (1993); In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 609 , 836 P.2d 200 (1992).

2005In re Dependency of J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 863 P.2d 1344 (1993); In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 609 , 836 P.2d 200 (1992).

22005–2005
In Re Marriage of Littlefield red
wash · 1997
2 sentences

2000See, e.g., Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 923 , 949 P.2d 1291 (1997) ("As in all matters dealing with the welfare of children, the court must additionally act in the best interests of the child."); Aschauer, *41 93 Wash.2d at 695 , 611 P.2d 1245 ("This court has repeatedly said that the goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests."); In re Sego, 82 Wash.2d 736, 738 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973) ("a child's welfare is the court's primary consideration ... when the rights of parents and

1998See, e.g., Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wn.2d 894, 923 , 949 P.2d 1291 (1997) (“As in all matters dealing with the welfare of children, the court must additionally act in the best interests of the child.”); Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d at 695 ) (“This court has repeatedly said that the goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests.”); In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 738 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973) (“a child’s welfare is the court’s primary consideration . . . when the rights of parents and the welfare

21998–2000
In re the Marriage of Littlefield red
wash · 1997
2 sentences

2000See, e.g., Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894, 923 , 949 P.2d 1291 (1997) ("As in all matters dealing with the welfare of children, the court must additionally act in the best interests of the child."); Aschauer, *41 93 Wash.2d at 695 , 611 P.2d 1245 ("This court has repeatedly said that the goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests."); In re Sego, 82 Wash.2d 736, 738 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973) ("a child's welfare is the court's primary consideration ... when the rights of parents and

1998See, e.g., Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wn.2d 894, 923 , 949 P.2d 1291 (1997) (“As in all matters dealing with the welfare of children, the court must additionally act in the best interests of the child.”); Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d at 695 ) (“This court has repeatedly said that the goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests.”); In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 738 , 513 P.2d 831 (1973) (“a child’s welfare is the court’s primary consideration . . . when the rights of parents and the welfare

21998–2000
State Ex Rel. Campbell v. Cook green
washctapp · 1997
2 sentences

2000Campbell v. Cook, 86 Wash.App. 761, 771 , 938 P.2d 345 , review denied, 133 Wash.2d 1019 , 948 P.2d 387 (1997) (noting the best interests of the child are paramount in paternity proceedings, the Court of Appeals upheld trial court's denial of the putative father's attempt to reopen/challenge paternity determination made 13 years prior).

2000Campbell v. Cook, 86 Wash.App. 761, 771 , 938 P.2d 345 , review denied, 133 Wash.2d 1019 , 948 P.2d 387 (1997) (noting the best interests of the child are paramount in paternity proceedings, the Court of Appeals upheld trial court's denial of the putative father's attempt to reopen/challenge paternity determination made 13 years prior).

21998–2000

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.030 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.020 (8) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.130 (8) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.025 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.065 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.110 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.136 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.063 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.090 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.180 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.260 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check