Wash. Rev. Code » Title 13 · Chapter 13.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.04.011 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
For purposes of this title:
(1) "Adjudication" has the same meaning as "conviction" in RCW 9.94A.030, but only for the purposes of sentencing under chapter 9.94A RCW;
(2) "Court" when used without further qualification means the juvenile court judge(s) or commissioner(s);
(3) "Custodian" means that person who has the legal right to custody of the child;
(4) "Department" means the department of children, youth, and families;
(5) Except as specifically provided in RCW 13.40.020 and chapters 13.24 and 13.34 RCW, "juvenile," "youth," and "child" mean any individual who is under the chronological age of eighteen years;
(6) "Juvenile offender" and "juvenile offense" have the meaning ascribed in RCW 13.40.020;
(7) "Parent" or "parents," except as used in chapter 13.34 RCW, means that parent or parents who have the right of legal custody of the child.
[ 2017 3rd sp.s. c 6 s 601; 2017 c 276 s 1; 2011 c 330 s 2; 2010 c 150 s 4; 1997 c 338 s 6; 1992 c 205 s 119; 1979 c 155 s 1; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 2.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: The definitions in this section have been alphabetized pursuant to RCW 1.08.015(2)(k).
Effective date—2017 3rd sp.s. c 6 ss 601-631, 701-728, and 804: "Sections 601 through 631, 701 through 728, and 804 of this act take effect July 1, 2019." [ 2017 3rd sp.s. c 6 s 826.]
Conflict with federal requirements—2017 3rd sp.s. c 6: See RCW 43.216.908.
Intent—2013 c 39; 2011 c 330: "The Washington state legislature has consistently provided national leadership on safe housing and support to foster youth transitioning out of foster care. Since 2006, the legislature has addressed the needs of foster youth aging out of care with medicaid to twenty-one (2007), foster care to twenty-one (2006), the independent youth housing program (2007), and Washington's alignment with the federal fostering connections act (2009). As a result of this national leadership to provide safe and basic housing to youth aging out of foster care, the programs have demonstrated the significant cost-benefit to providing safe housing to our youth exiting foster care.
The United States congress passed the fostering connections to success and increasing adoptions act of 2008 in order to give states another financial tool to continue to provide foster care services to dependent youth who turn eighteen years old while in foster care. However, substantially declining revenues have resulted in markedly decreased funds for states to use to meet the federal requirements necessary to help these youth. Current fiscal realities require that the scope of programs must be narrowed.
The Washington state legislature intends to serve, within the resources available, the maximum number of foster youth who are legally dependent on the state and who reach the age of eighteen while still in foster care. The legislature intends to provide these youth continued foster care services to support basic and healthy transition into adulthood. The legislature recognizes the extremely poor outcomes of unsupported foster youth aging out of the foster care system and is committed to ensuring that those foster youth who engage in positive, age-appropriate activities receive support. It is the intent of the legislature to fully engage in the fostering connections act by providing support, including extended court supervision to foster youth pursuing a high school diploma or high school equivalency certificate as provided in RCW 28B.50.536 to age twenty-one with the goal of increasing support to all children up to age twenty-one who are eligible under the federal fostering connections to success act as resources become available." [ 2013 c 39 s 1; 2011 c 330 s 1.]
Finding—Evaluation—Report—1997 c 338: See note following RCW 13.40.0357.
Severability—Effective dates—1997 c 338: See notes following RCW 5.60.060.
Part headings not law—Severability—1992 c 205: See notes following RCW 13.40.010.
Effective date—1979 c 155: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [March 29, 1979]." [ 1979 c 155 s 89.]
Severability—1979 c 155: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1979 c 155 s 88.]
Effective dates—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 291: See notes following RCW 13.04.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: State v. Weber, 159 Wash. 2d 252 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Weber, 159 Wash. 2d 252 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶21 While a goal of juvenile adjudication is rehabilitation, our State’s system anticipates that individuals who are not rehabilitated and who reoffend as adults may be punished in a manner that considers their preceding juvenile criminal behavior.”
State v. Weber, 149 P.3d 646 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶ 21 While a goal of juvenile adjudication is rehabilitation, our State's system anticipates that individuals who are not rehabilitated and who reoffend as adults may be punished in a manner that considers their preceding juvenile criminal behavior.”
Blume v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 106 Wash. App. 714 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “” 13 Because the statutes at issue here have no explicit definition of “legal custody” and the term has been interpreted differently depending upon the statutory con *722 text in which it has been applied, we conclude that its use in RCW 13.04.011(6) and the term “custodian” in…”
In Re Dependency of JWH, 57 P.3d 266 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “Although that court rejected the State's argument that the Blumes did not have standing to appeal, it affirmed the trial court's dependency order on the basis that as temporary custodians the Blumes were not legal custodians in the context of dependency actions. It said: We hold…”
State v. JH, 978 P.2d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “[21] RCW 13.04.011(1). [22] RCW 9.94A.030(9). [23] See State v.”
State v. J.H., 96 Wash. App. 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 13.04.011(1). RCW 9.94A.030(9). See State v.”
State v. Chavez, 180 P.3d 1250 (Wash. 2008). “Among circumstances that counsel describe are the legislature’s equation of the meaning of “adjudication” and “conviction” (RCW 13.04.011(1) states, “ ‘[a]djudication’ has the same meaning as ‘conviction’ in RCW 9.”
In Re Est. of Fleming, 21 P.3d 281 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “011 defines "parent" as "that parent or parents who have the right of legal custody of the child" and as "biological or adoptive parents of a child unless the legal rights of that person have been terminated by judicial proceedings.”
Monroe v. Soliz, 939 P.2d 205 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 13.04.011. Juveniles do not commit "crimes.”
Schwebke v. Lutheran Soc. Servs., 815 P.2d 1380 (Wash. 1991). “27 RCW 13.04.011(4) (defining "parent"); RCW 26.”
In Re the Welfare of S.V.B., 880 P.2d 80 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “RCW 13.04.011(4). Here, Appellant is the biological parent of I, J, and S.”
Ledgerwood v. Lansdowne, 120 Wash. App. 414 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “All of this amply supports the trial judge’s exercise of discretion. The court did not abuse its discretion.”
Show all 44 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.04.011(1) — 14 cases
State v. Weber, 159 Wash. 2d 252 (Wash. 2006). “¶21 While a goal of juvenile adjudication is rehabilitation, our State’s system anticipates that individuals who are not rehabilitated and who reoffend as adults may be punished in a manner that considers their preceding juvenile criminal behavior.”
State v. Weber, 149 P.3d 646 (Wash. 2006). “¶ 21 While a goal of juvenile adjudication is rehabilitation, our State's system anticipates that individuals who are not rehabilitated and who reoffend as adults may be punished in a manner that considers their preceding juvenile criminal behavior.”
State v. JH, 978 P.2d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “[21] RCW 13.04.011(1). [22] RCW 9.94A.030(9). [23] See State v.”
State v. J.H., 96 Wash. App. 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 13.04.011(1). RCW 9.94A.030(9). See State v.”
State v. Chavez, 180 P.3d 1250 (Wash. 2008). “Among circumstances that counsel describe are the legislature’s equation of the meaning of “adjudication” and “conviction” (RCW 13.04.011(1) states, “ ‘[a]djudication’ has the same meaning as ‘conviction’ in RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.04.011(2) — 5 cases
Ledgerwood v. Lansdowne, 120 Wash. App. 414 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “All of this amply supports the trial judge’s exercise of discretion. The court did not abuse its discretion.”
Ledgerwood v. Lansdowne, 85 P.3d 950 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Posey, 122 P.3d 914 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Posey, 130 Wash. App. 262 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
In Re The Dependency Of H.w. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.04.011(3) — 1 case
M.M. v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No 10 (W.D. Wash. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.04.011(4) — 3 cases
Schwebke v. Lutheran Soc. Servs., 815 P.2d 1380 (Wash. 1991). “27 RCW 13.04.011(4) (defining "parent"); RCW 26.”
In Re the Welfare of S.V.B., 880 P.2d 80 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “RCW 13.04.011(4). Here, Appellant is the biological parent of I, J, and S.”
Rogulj v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 899 P.2d 1286 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.04.011(5) — 4 cases
In the Matter of the Dependency Of: K.D.M.S. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Harrell, 718 P.2d 797 (Wash. 1986).
Rogulj v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 899 P.2d 1286 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
In Re The Dep Of A.d., Patricia Dimitry v. Dshs, State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.04.011(6) — 6 cases
Blume v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 106 Wash. App. 714 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “” 13 Because the statutes at issue here have no explicit definition of “legal custody” and the term has been interpreted differently depending upon the statutory con *722 text in which it has been applied, we conclude that its use in RCW 13.04.011(6) and the term “custodian” in…”
In Re Dependency of JWH, 57 P.3d 266 (Wash. 2002). “Although that court rejected the State's argument that the Blumes did not have standing to appeal, it affirmed the trial court's dependency order on the basis that as temporary custodians the Blumes were not legal custodians in the context of dependency actions. It said: We hold…”
In Re Dependency of JWH, 24 P.3d 1105 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
In Re Dependency of Dm, 149 P.3d 433 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Blume v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 147 Wash. 2d 687 (Wash. 2002).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.04.011(7) — 1 case
Welfare Of B.H.-W. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.