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

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.04.035 (2026)

Administrator of juvenile court, probation counselor, and detention services—Appointment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Juvenile court shall be administered by the superior court, except that by local court rule and agreement with the legislative authority of the county this service may be administered by the legislative authority of the county. Juvenile probation counselor and detention services shall be administered by the superior court, except that (1) by local court rule and agreement with the county legislative authority, these services may be administered by the county legislative authority; (2) for the consortium in existence on July 23, 2017, if a consortium of three or more counties, located east of the Cascade mountains and whose combined population exceeds two hundred thousand, jointly operates a juvenile correctional facility, the county legislative authorities may prescribe for alternative administration of the juvenile correctional facility by ordinance; and (3) in any county with a population of one million or more, probation and detention services shall be administered in accordance with chapter 13.20 RCW. The administrative body shall appoint an administrator of juvenile court, probation counselor, and detention services who shall be responsible for day-to-day administration of such services, and who may also serve in the capacity of a probation counselor. One person may, pursuant to the agreement of more than one administrative body, serve as administrator of more than one juvenile court. If a county participating in a consortium authorized under subsection (2) of this section withdraws from participation, the withdrawing county may rejoin the consortium at a later time so long as a majority of the consortium members agree.
[ 2017 c 278 s 1; 1996 c 284 s 1; 1991 c 363 s 10; 1979 c 155 s 5; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 6.]

Notes:

Purpose—Captions not law—1991 c 363: See notes following RCW 2.32.180.
Effective date—Severability—1979 c 155: See notes following RCW 13.04.011.
Effective dates—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 291: See notes following RCW 13.04.005.
Prosecuting attorney as party to juvenile court proceedings—Exception, procedure: RCW 13.40.090.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1982–2018 · leading case: Tommy P. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 645 P.2d 697 (Wash. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tommy P. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 645 P.2d 697 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 2× “RCW 13.04.035. Class AA counties are counties with populations of more than 500,000.”
State v. Sanchez, 146 Wash. 2d 339 (Wash. 2002). “In contrast to CCOs are juvenile probation officers who the Legislature has provided are an arm of the court, RCW 13.04.035, and who shall “[m]ake recommendations to the court” regarding dispositions.”
State v. GAH, 137 P.3d 66 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 13.04.035 further provides that juvenile probation staff are employees of the superior court.”
State v. G.A.H., 133 Wash. App. 567 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “The first is when the offender is committed to the custody of the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration for incarceration at a state institution.”
State v. Sanchez, 46 P.3d 774 (Wash. 2002). “[3] In contrast to CCOs are juvenile probation officers who the Legislature has provided are an arm of the court, RCW 13.04.035, and who shall "make recommendations to the court" regarding dispositions.”
State v. Merz, 771 P.2d 1178 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “See RCW 13.04.035, .040, 13.40.130(7). Counselors may recommend exceptional sentences even when their recommendations conflict with those of the prosecution.”
Pierce Cnty. v. State, 769 P.2d 291 (Wash. 1989). “RCW 13.04.035; 13.34.090, .100. Under the revision, the Legislature delegated some of the duties previously performed by the *170 county probation counselors to DSHS when the petition for dependency or termination was filed by that agency.”
State Of Washington v. Dakoda Loomer (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “RCW 13.04.035. 7 No. 77360-7-1/8 aggravating factors is the equivalent of a charging decision.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 13.04.035(1): 1 case
State Of Washington v. Dakoda Loomer (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 13.04.035. 7 No. 77360-7-1/8 aggravating factors is the equivalent of a charging decision.”
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.