Wash. Rev. Code » Title 13 · Chapter 13.34
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.120 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) To aid the court in its decision on disposition, a social study shall be made by the person or agency filing the petition. A parent may submit a counselor's or health care provider's evaluation of the parent, which shall either be included in the social study or considered in conjunction with the social study. The study shall include all social files and may also include facts relating to the child's cultural heritage, and shall be made available to the court. The court shall consider the social file, social study, guardian ad litem report, the court-appointed special advocate's report, if any, and any reports filed by a party at the disposition hearing in addition to evidence produced at the fact-finding hearing. At least ten working days before the disposition hearing, the department shall mail to the parent and his or her attorney a copy of the agency's social study and proposed service plan, which shall be in writing or in a form understandable to the parents or custodians. In addition, the department shall provide an opportunity for parents to review and comment on the plan at the local office closest to the parents' residence. If the parents disagree with the agency's plan or any part thereof, the parents shall submit to the court at least twenty-four hours before the hearing, in writing, or signed oral statement, an alternative plan to correct the problems which led to the finding of dependency. This section shall not interfere with the right of the parents or custodians to submit oral arguments regarding the disposition plan at the hearing.
(2)(a) The guardian ad litem or court-appointed special advocate shall file his or her report with the court and with the parties pursuant to court rule prior to a hearing for which a report is required. The report shall include a written list of persons interviewed and reports or documentation considered. If the report makes particular recommendations, the report shall include specific information on which the guardian ad litem or court-appointed special advocate relied in making each particular recommendation.
(b) The parties to the proceeding may file written responses to the guardian ad litem's or court-appointed special advocate's report with the court and deliver such responses to the other parties at a reasonable time or pursuant to court rule before the hearing. The court shall consider any written responses to the guardian ad litem's or court-appointed special advocate's report, including any factual information or recommendations provided in the report.
[ 2000 c 124 s 5; 2000 c 122 s 13; 1998 c 328 s 4; 1996 c 249 s 14; 1994 c 288 s 2; 1993 c 412 s 8; 1987 c 524 s 5; 1979 c 155 s 45; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 40.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2000 c 122 s 13 and by 2000 c 124 s 5, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Intent—1996 c 249: See note following RCW 2.56.030.
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Babcock v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Babcock v. State, 768 P.2d 481 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 18× “As required by RCW 13.34.120, DSHS submitted a report and recommendation to the juvenile court.”
Babcock v. State, 809 P.2d 143 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 3× “See RCW 13.34.120. The parents would be entitled to a hearing if they disagreed with the disposition.”
Braam v. State, 150 Wash. 2d 689 (Wash. 2003). “, RCW 13.34.120, .130; cf. Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem.”
Braam Ex Rel. Braam v. State, 81 P.3d 851 (Wash. 2003). “, RCW 13.34.120, .130; cf Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Paulos, 270 P.3d 607 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “150 provides: Any order made by the court in the case of a dependent child may be changed, modified, or set aside, only upon a showing of a change in circumstance or as provided in RCW 13.34.120.[ [2] ] ¶ 35 Here, there was no showing of a change of circumstances.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Johnson, 123 Wash. App. 215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “If the court erroneously finds a caseworker to be more credible than the parent, and on that basis refuses to consider allowing the child to return to the parent’s home, the parent is one step closer to the initiation of termination proceedings.”
Ferguson v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 701 P.2d 513 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “110 requires that the court shall receive and review a social study prepared pursuant to RCW 13.34.120 before entering an order based on agreement.”
Halsted v. Sallee, 639 P.2d 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “RCW 13.34.120 requires a social study and predisposition study be submitted to the court.”
State v. Poupart, 773 P.2d 893 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “080, as now or hereafter amended, and ensure that the requirements of such agreements are met except as otherwise provided in this title; (4) Prepare predisposition studies as required in RCW 13.34.120 and 13.40.130, as now or hereafter amended, and be present at the disposition…”
In Re Baby Girl Coverdell, 637 P.2d 991 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Obviously, the guardian ad litem and DSHS were aware of Miss Langston's identity and could have presented her testimony as part of their case in chief, but declined to do so.”
In Re Dependency of RL, 98 P.3d 75 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “*80 If the court erroneously finds a caseworker to be more credible than the parent, and on that basis refuses to consider allowing the child to return to the parent's home, the parent is one step closer to the initiation of termination proceedings.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Paulos, 166 Wash. App. 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “for several months before the Department conducted an investigation and placed the child with the paternal grandparents in October 2010.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.120(1) — 2 cases
Dependency Of C.w., Johnathan Weidenaar v. Dcyf (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
In re Dependency of E.M., 557 P.3d 264 (Wash. 2024).
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.