Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.020
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature declares that the family unit is a fundamental resource of American life which should be nurtured. Toward the continuance of this principle, the legislature declares that the family unit should remain intact unless a child's right to conditions of basic nurture, health, or safety is jeopardized. When the rights of basic nurture, physical and mental health, and safety of the child and the legal rights of the parents are in conflict, the rights and safety of the child should prevail. In making reasonable efforts under this chapter, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern. The right of a child to basic nurturing includes the right to a safe, stable, and permanent home and a speedy resolution of any proceeding under this chapter.
Notes:
Finding—Effective date—1990 c 284: See notes following RCW 74.13.250.
Effective dates—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 291: See notes following RCW 13.04.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 244
cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Department of Social & Health Services v. Rhyne
Department of Social & Health Services v. Rhyne (2001)
“RCW 13.34.020. RCW 13.34.020; In re Dependency of K.”
In Re Dependency of TR (2001)
“[6] RCW 13.34.020. [7] RCW 13.34.020; In re Dependency of K.”
Department of Social & Health Services v. L.H. (2016)
“The law creates a sense of urgency by requiring, absent compelling circumstances, that a petition for termination of parental rights be filed whenever a child is in foster care 15 of the past 22 months.”
In Re the Welfare of Sumey (1980)
“" RCW 13.34.020. The RCW 13.32 procedure furthers these goals by requiring the employment of all feasible measures such as counseling and rehabilitative social services prior to removing the child from the home, and requiring the continuation of efforts to unite the family after…”
Department of Social & Health Services v. H.O. (2016)
“II) (quoting RCW 13.34.020). Where a trial court finds that the six statutory prerequisites have been met, this constitutes an implicit finding of unfitness.”
Franks v. State (In re M.-A.F.-S.) (2018)
“" RCW 13.34.020. Because parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children, we examine the termination statutes under the strict scrutiny standard.”
Tyner v. Department of Social & Health Services (2000)
“RCW 13.34.020, a counterpart to Title 26 RCW, further evinces the Legislature’s strong views regarding the importance of the family, stating that “the family unit is a fundamental resource of American life which should be *79 nurtured.”
In Re Dependency of Schermer (2007)
“To that end, the legislature has provided a procedure by which a child may be declared "dependent," transferring legal custody to the State.”
In re the Dependency of R.W. (2008)
“RCW 13.34.020. Accordingly, to the extent that the juvenile court based its decision on the erroneous belief that it was required to approve a placement plan that would allow reunification with the mother, it erred.”
In re Dependency of E.H. (2018)
“2d at 15-16 ; RCW 13.34.020. This includes visitation with his siblings as well as his mother because "familial bonds stem notjust from biology, but also from the intimacies of daily association.”
Scott v. Department of Social & Health Services (1993)
“To the contrary, the pertinent statute, RCW 13.34.020, was amended in 1987 to expressly reflect the Legislature’s concern to assure the child’s interests be given due consideration, and prevail in case of conflict with the parents’: [T]he legislature declares that the family…”
In Re Welfare of GE (2003)
“" RCW 13.34.020. Over the course of multiple dependency and termination hearings, the trial court appointed C.”
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.