Wash. Rev. Code » Title 13 · Chapter 13.32A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.32A.175 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any proceeding in which the court approves an out-of-home placement, the court shall inquire into the ability of parents to contribute to the child's support. If the court finds that the parents are able to contribute to the support of the child, the court shall order them to make such support payments as the court deems equitable. The court may enforce such an order by execution or in any way in which a court of equity may enforce its orders. However, payments shall not be required of a parent who has both opposed the placement and continuously sought reconciliation with, and the return of, the child. All orders entered in a proceeding approving out-of-home placement shall be in compliance with the provisions of RCW 26.23.050.
[ 1995 c 312 s 19; 1987 c 435 s 13; 1981 c 298 s 15.]

Notes:

Short title—1995 c 312: See note following RCW 13.32A.010.
Effective date—1987 c 435: See RCW 26.23.900.
Severability—1981 c 298: See note following RCW 13.32A.040.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1982–1988 · leading case: In Re Eaton, 757 P.2d 961 (Wash. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Eaton, 757 P.2d 961 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 5× “Eaton relies on RCW 13.32A.175, which states in part as follows: In any proceeding in which the court approves an alternative residential placement, the court shall inquire into the ability of parents to contribute to the child's support.”
In Re Eaton, 740 P.2d 907 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “See RCW 13.32A.175. 4 DSHS did not appeal the January 29 order, but instead simply failed to comply with it.”
Rosell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 652 P.2d 1360 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “030(2)(d) was omitted by the Legislature and July 26, 1981, when RCW 13.32A.175 *158 became effective to fill the void? The parties are agreed that reference to the repealed subsection 13.”
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.