67 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2025 11 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Welfare of Sumeygreen2 sentences2007As this court stated, "[t]he key difference in the dependency hearing is `a preliminary, remedial, nonadversary proceeding' that does not permanently deprive a parent of any rights." Id. (quoting In re A.W., 53 Wash. App. 22 , 30, 765 P.2d 307 (1988), review denied, 112 Wash.2d 1017 , 1989 WL 661583 (1989)); see also Sumey, 94 Wash.2d 757 , 621 P.2d 108 (rejecting constitutional challenge to statute allowing out-of-home placement of "runaway" youth without regard to parental fault). ¶ 40 A dependency based on RCW 13.34.030(5)(c) does not turn on parental "unfitness" in the usual sense. 2007As this court stated, "[t]he key difference in the dependency hearing is `a preliminary, remedial, nonadversary proceeding' that does not permanently deprive a parent of any rights." Id. (quoting In re A.W., 53 Wash. App. 22 , 30, 765 P.2d 307 (1988), review denied, 112 Wash.2d 1017 , 1989 WL 661583 (1989)); see also Sumey, 94 Wash.2d 757 , 621 P.2d 108 (rejecting constitutional challenge to statute allowing out-of-home placement of "runaway" youth without regard to parental fault). ¶ 40 A dependency based on RCW 13.34.030(5)(c) does not turn on parental "unfitness" in the usual sense. | 3 | 3 |
Cook v. Raffertygreen2 sentences2009Mitchell, 183 Wash. at 407 (substantial dependency should be determined on the basis of “the circumstances of the plaintiff”); Cook v. Rafferty, 200 Wash. 234, 240 , 93 P.2d 376 (1939) (“[H]ad [the decedent] lived, she would have continued to contribute to the support of the family and continued to care for her parents....Mr. and Mrs. Cook suffered a pecuniary loss by reason of her death.”). 2009Mitchell, 183 Wash. at 407 (substantial dependency should be determined on the basis of “the circumstances of the plaintiff”); Cook v. Rafferty, 200 Wash. 234, 240 , 93 P.2d 376 (1939) (“[H]ad [the decedent] lived, she would have continued to contribute to the support of the family and continued to care for her parents....Mr. and Mrs. Cook suffered a pecuniary loss by reason of her death.”). | 2 | 2 |
Schermer v. Department of Social & Health Servicesgreen2 sentences2025Schermer, 161 Wn.2d at 942 . “‘[T]he goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests.’” Id. (quoting In re Welfare of Becker, 87 Wn.2d 470, 476 , 553 P.2d 1339 (1976)). 2025Schermer, 161 Wn.2d at 942 . “‘[T]he goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests.’” Id. (quoting In re Welfare of Becker, 87 Wn.2d 470, 476 , 553 P.2d 1339 (1976)). | 1 | 8 |
Frederickson v. Beckergreen2 sentences2025Schermer, 161 Wn.2d at 942 . “‘[T]he goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests.’” Id. (quoting In re Welfare of Becker, 87 Wn.2d 470, 476 , 553 P.2d 1339 (1976)). 2025Schermer, 161 Wn.2d at 942 . “‘[T]he goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his best interests.’” Id. (quoting In re Welfare of Becker, 87 Wn.2d 470, 476 , 553 P.2d 1339 (1976)). | 1 | 4 |
Department of Social & Health Services v. Browngreen2 sentences2011RCW 13.34.110(1); In re Dependency of Brown, 149 Wash.2d 836, 840-41 , 72 P.3d 757 (2003). ¶ 24 Unlike a dependency hearing, a review hearing is limited in purpose to reviewing the "progress of the parties and determin[ing] whether court supervision should continue." RCW 13.34.138(1). 2011RCW 13.34.110(1); In re Dependency of Brown, 149 Wn.2d 836, 840-41 , 72 P.3d 757 (2003). ¶24 Unlike a dependency hearing, a review hearing is limited in purpose to reviewing the “progress of the parties and determining] whether court supervision should continue.” RCW 13.34.138(1). | 1 | 3 |
In Re Dependency of Browngreen2 sentences2011RCW 13.34.110(1); In re Dependency of Brown, 149 Wash.2d 836, 840-41 , 72 P.3d 757 (2003). ¶ 24 Unlike a dependency hearing, a review hearing is limited in purpose to reviewing the "progress of the parties and determin[ing] whether court supervision should continue." RCW 13.34.138(1). 2011RCW 13.34.110(1); In re Dependency of Brown, 149 Wn.2d 836, 840-41 , 72 P.3d 757 (2003). ¶24 Unlike a dependency hearing, a review hearing is limited in purpose to reviewing the “progress of the parties and determining] whether court supervision should continue.” RCW 13.34.138(1). | 1 | 3 |
Mitchell v. Ricegreen2 sentences2009Mitchell, 183 Wash. at 407 , 48 P.2d 949 (substantial dependency should be determined on the basis of "the circumstances of the plaintiff"); Cook v. Rafferty, 200 Wash. 234, 240 , 93 P.2d 376 (1939) ("[h]ad [the decedent] lived, she would have continued to contribute to the support of the family and continued to care for her parents[.] ... 2009Mitchell, 183 Wash. at 407 (substantial dependency should be determined on the basis of “the circumstances of the plaintiff”); Cook v. Rafferty, 200 Wash. 234, 240 , 93 P.2d 376 (1939) (“[H]ad [the decedent] lived, she would have continued to contribute to the support of the family and continued to care for her parents....Mr. and Mrs. Cook suffered a pecuniary loss by reason of her death.”). | 1 | 2 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences1996Based on this evidence, it also cannot be said that, at the termination proceeding, the juvenile court relied solely upon the fact that K.C. had abused drugs and alcohol, which had been established at a dependency hearing by a preponderance of the evidence. [9] See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758 , 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1397 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) ("use of a `fair preponderance of the evidence' standard in [parental rights termination] proceedings is inconsistent with due process"). 1996Based on this evidence, it also cannot be said that, at the termination proceeding, the juvenile court relied solely upon the fact that K.C. had abused drugs and alcohol, which had been established at a dependency hearing by a preponderance of the evidence. [9] See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758 , 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1397 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) ("use of a `fair preponderance of the evidence' standard in [parental rights termination] proceedings is inconsistent with due process"). | 1 | 2 |
In re the Parental Rights to K.M.M.green1 sentence2024The Department has a statutory obligation to provide all services ordered by the court, as well as “all necessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future.” RCW 13.34.180(1)(d); See also In re Dependency of K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466, 479 , 379 P.3d 75 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Chubb v. Department of Social & Health Servicesgreen2 sentences2024We do not have the verbatim report of proceedings from the dependency hearing and the order does not reflect any finding of good cause for continuing a “disposition hearing.” 10 84605-1-I/11 the child and preserve the family.” Schermer, 161 Wn.2d at 942 -43 (citing In re Dependency of Chubb, 46 Wn. 2024We do not have the verbatim report of proceedings from the dependency hearing and the order does not reflect any finding of good cause for continuing a “disposition hearing.” 10 84605-1-I/11 the child and preserve the family.” Schermer, 161 Wn.2d at 942 -43 (citing In re Dependency of Chubb, 46 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
| In Re KRgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re AW
green
2 sentences2025A dependency hearing is “ ‘a preliminary, remedial, nonadversary proceeding’ that does not permanently deprive a parent of any rights.” In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 609 , -5- No. 87166-8-I (consol. with Nos. 87167-6-I, 87168-4-I)/6 836 P.2d 200 (1992) (quoting In re Dependency of A.W., 53 Wn. 2025A dependency hearing is “ ‘a preliminary, remedial, nonadversary proceeding’ that does not permanently deprive a parent of any rights.” In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 609 , -5- No. 87166-8-I (consol. with Nos. 87167-6-I, 87168-4-I)/6 836 P.2d 200 (1992) (quoting In re Dependency of A.W., 53 Wn. | 15 | 1992–2025 |
Matter of Welfare of Key
green
2 sentences2025A dependency hearing is “ ‘a preliminary, remedial, nonadversary proceeding’ that does not permanently deprive a parent of any rights.” In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 609 , -5- No. 87166-8-I (consol. with Nos. 87167-6-I, 87168-4-I)/6 836 P.2d 200 (1992) (quoting In re Dependency of A.W., 53 Wn. 2025A dependency hearing is “ ‘a preliminary, remedial, nonadversary proceeding’ that does not permanently deprive a parent of any rights.” In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 609 , -5- No. 87166-8-I (consol. with Nos. 87167-6-I, 87168-4-I)/6 836 P.2d 200 (1992) (quoting In re Dependency of A.W., 53 Wn. | 13 | 2000–2025 |
State v. Cleveland
green
2 sentences2000In Williams, State v. Cleveland, 58 Wash.App. 634 , 794 P.2d 546 , review denied, 115 Wash.2d 1029 , 803 P.2d 324 (1990), and State v. Dupard, 93 Wash.2d 268 , 609 P.2d 961 (1980), the courts declined to apply collateral estoppel because issues of fact were previously litigated in a parole board hearing, a dependency hearing, and an administrative hearing respectively. 2000In Williams, State v. Cleveland, 58 Wash.App. 634 , 794 P.2d 546 , review denied, 115 Wash.2d 1029 , 803 P.2d 324 (1990), and State v. Dupard, 93 Wash.2d 268 , 609 P.2d 961 (1980), the courts declined to apply collateral estoppel because issues of fact were previously litigated in a parole board hearing, a dependency hearing, and an administrative hearing respectively. | 7 | 1995–2002 |
Jenkins v. Department of Social & Health Services
green
2 sentences2023“A dependency hearing is a fact-finding inquiry, the purpose of which is to determine whether the State can meet its burden of showing the child is dependent as defined by statute.” In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568, 579 , 257 P.3d 522 (2011). 6 At the time of the trial, M.W. reported daily use of Kratom, a legal supplement with opioid-like properties. 7 No. 84395-8-I/8 The Department has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is dependent under RCW 13.34.030. 2021Id. at 91 . 6 55550-6-II The rules of evidence apply to a dependency hearing, RCW 13.34.110(1); ER 1101(c)(3); In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568, 579 , 257 P.3d 522 (2011). | 5 | 2015–2023 |
In Re Dependency of KNJ
green
2 sentences2023“A dependency hearing is a fact-finding inquiry, the purpose of which is to determine whether the State can meet its burden of showing the child is dependent as defined by statute.” In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568, 579 , 257 P.3d 522 (2011). 6 At the time of the trial, M.W. reported daily use of Kratom, a legal supplement with opioid-like properties. 7 No. 84395-8-I/8 The Department has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a child is dependent under RCW 13.34.030. 2021Id. at 91 . 6 55550-6-II The rules of evidence apply to a dependency hearing, RCW 13.34.110(1); ER 1101(c)(3); In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568, 579 , 257 P.3d 522 (2011). | 5 | 2015–2023 |
Department of Social & Health Services v. Gilfillen
green
2 sentences2021The primary purpose of a dependency hearing “is to allow courts to order remedial measures to preserve and mend family ties.” In re Dependency of T.L.G., 126 Wn. 2016The primary purpose of a dependency hearing “is to allow courts to order remedial measures to preserve and mend family ties.” In re Dependency of T.L.G., 126 Wn. | 5 | 2014–2021 |
Coverdell v. Department of Social & Health Services
neutral
2 sentences2011Foster parents generally have neither a right to intervene in dependency proceedings nor a very high likelihood of being granted permissive intervention in such proceedings because “a foster parent’s adversarial participation in a dependency hearing has a tendency to shift the focus of the proceeding from the ability of the natural parent to care for the child to a comparison of the natural parent to the foster parent.” In re Welfare of Coverdell, 39 Wn. 2002App. 887 , 696 P.2d 1241 (1984), a case in which the court concluded that a “foster parent’s adversarial participation in a dependency hearing has a tendency to shift the focus of the proceeding from the ability of the natural parent to care for the child to a comparison of the natural parent to the foster parent.” Id. at 890-91 . | 5 | 2002–2011 |
In Re Dependency of TLG
green
2 sentences2021App. 181, 203 , 108 P.3d 156 (2005)). 2016App. 181, 203 , 108 P.3d 156 (2005). | 4 | 2014–2021 |
In Re the Welfare of Aschauer
green
2 sentences2020App. 45, 61 , 323 P.3d 1062 (2014) (quoting RCW 13.34.020). - 10- No. 79941-0-I/li presented to support the trial court’s determination that Foster is an unfit parent.13 E Foster also contends that the Department failed to prove that termination is in F.Y.O.’s best interests. “[TJhe goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his [or her] best interests.” In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689, 695 , 611 P.2d 1245 (1980). 2020App. 45, 61 , 323 P.3d 1062 (2014) (quoting RCW 13.34.020). - 10- No. 79941-0-I/li presented to support the trial court’s determination that Foster is an unfit parent.13 E Foster also contends that the Department failed to prove that termination is in F.Y.O.’s best interests. “[TJhe goal of a dependency hearing is to determine the welfare of the child and his [or her] best interests.” In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689, 695 , 611 P.2d 1245 (1980). | 3 | 2013–2020 |
In Re the Welfare of Hansen
green
2 sentences2021Id. 2004App. 27, 36 , 599 P.2d 1304 (1979) (recognizing the due process rights of legal guardians, who had raised child for over eight years and stood in loco parentis to the child, to be given a full and meaningful opportunity to be heard at a dependency hearing under chapter 13.04 RCW), cited with approval in In re Dependency of J.W.H., 147 Wn.2d 687, 700-01 , 57 P.3d 266 (2002). | 2 | 2004–2021 |
In Re the Welfare of Warren
green
2 sentences2011RCW 13.34.110(1); In re Warren, 40 Wash.2d 342, 343 , 243 P.2d 632 (1952). 2011RCW 13.34.110(1); In re Warren, 40 Wash.2d 342, 343 , 243 P.2d 632 (1952). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
In re Dependency of A.E.P.
green
2 sentences2005In re Dependency of A.E.P., 135 Wash.2d 208, 234 , 956 P.2d 297 (1998). ¶ 49 A similar result should follow here. ¶ 50 For these reasons I would reverse the convictions. 2005In re Dependency of A.E.P., 135 Wn.2d 208, 234 , 956 P.2d 297 (1998). ¶49 A similar result should follow here. ¶50 For these reasons I would reverse the convictions. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Matter of Dependency of AEP
green
2 sentences2005In re Dependency of A.E.P., 135 Wash.2d 208, 234 , 956 P.2d 297 (1998). ¶ 49 A similar result should follow here. ¶ 50 For these reasons I would reverse the convictions. 2005In re Dependency of A.E.P., 135 Wn.2d 208, 234 , 956 P.2d 297 (1998). ¶49 A similar result should follow here. ¶50 For these reasons I would reverse the convictions. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Dupard
green
2 sentences2000In Williams, State v. Cleveland, 58 Wash.App. 634 , 794 P.2d 546 , review denied, 115 Wash.2d 1029 , 803 P.2d 324 (1990), and State v. Dupard, 93 Wash.2d 268 , 609 P.2d 961 (1980), the courts declined to apply collateral estoppel because issues of fact were previously litigated in a parole board hearing, a dependency hearing, and an administrative hearing respectively. 2000In Williams, State v. Cleveland, 58 Wash.App. 634 , 794 P.2d 546 , review denied, 115 Wash.2d 1029 , 803 P.2d 324 (1990), and State v. Dupard, 93 Wash.2d 268 , 609 P.2d 961 (1980), the courts declined to apply collateral estoppel because issues of fact were previously litigated in a parole board hearing, a dependency hearing, and an administrative hearing respectively. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
In Re Ross
green
2 sentences1970The answer to this question may be found in In re Ross, 45 Wn.2d 654 , 277 P.2d 335 (1954). 1970The answer to this question may be found in In re Ross, 45 Wn.2d 654 , 277 P.2d 335 (1954). | 2 | 1968–1970 |
In re the Welfare of B.D.F.
green
1 sentence2025B.D.F., 126 Wn. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Dependency of G.J.A.
green
1 sentence2024We rule, based on RCW 13.38.040(1)(a)(ii) and In re Dependency of G.J.A., 197 Wn.2d 868 , 875, 489 P.3d 631 (2021), that the dependency court must review and find active efforts during every hearing, in which the State seeks to place the Indian child out of the home. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Bays
green
1 sentence2023But “public policy arguments do not control our interpretation of a clear statute.” State v. Bays, 90 Wn. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re the Welfare of X.T.
green
1 sentence2023In re Welfare of X.T., 174 Wn. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
D.P. v. Department of Social & Health Services
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 91 . 6 55550-6-II The rules of evidence apply to a dependency hearing, RCW 13.34.110(1); ER 1101(c)(3); In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568, 579 , 257 P.3d 522 (2011). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Department of Social & Health Services v. E.I. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re the Marriage of Wehr neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Gamble green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Gamble green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| In Re Dependency of Schermer green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Battle v. Barton green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Daniel B. v. Department of Social & Health Services green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re the Welfare of Henderson green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Department of Social & Health Services v. S.H. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Blume v. Department of Social & Health Services green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| In Re Dependency of JWH green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Lightfoot v. Town of Fairfield green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Dickenson green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Whitt green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Prevost green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Babcock v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| In Re the Welfare of Myricks green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| In Re the Welfare of Luscier green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People in Interest of AMD green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Gibson v. Superior Court for Pierce County green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.