Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.150 (2026)
Modification of orders
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
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.
[ 1993 c 412 s 9; 1990 c 246 s 6; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 43; 1913 c 160 s 15; RRS s 1987-15. Formerly RCW 13.04.150.]
Notes:
Severability—1990 c 246: See note following RCW 13.34.060.
Effective dates—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 291: See notes following RCW 13.04.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1984–2012 · leading case: Babcock v. State, 809 P.2d 143 (Wash. 1991).
Babcock v. State, 809 P.2d 143 (Wash. 1991). “See RCW 13.34.150. The legality of the court order is not at issue.”
Matter of Welfare of Key, 836 P.2d 200 (Wash. 1992). “RCW 13.34.150. To sustain a dependency finding, the State will then be required to establish facts sufficient to satisfy a finding of dependency under some other category of RCW 13.”
Burrell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 976 P.2d 113 (Wash. 1999). “Unlike termination of parental rights, which completely and irrevocably eliminates all parental rights, these dependency guardianship statutes contemplate that a parent might seek termination of the guardianship and custody of the child.”
In Re Dependency of KSC, 976 P.2d 113 (Wash. 1999). “Unlike termination of parental rights, which completely and irrevocably eliminates all parental rights, these dependency guardianship statutes contemplate that a parent might seek termination of the guardianship and custody of the child.”
B.S. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 973 P.2d 474 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “” RCW 13.34.150 provides for changes to court orders “upon a showing of a change in circumstance[.”
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.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Paulos, 270 P.3d 607 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 13.34.150 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.”
In Re Vrr, 141 P.3d 85 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “145(1)(b); RCW 13.34.150. At a termination trial, the State has to prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence parental unfitness.”
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.”
Coverdell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 696 P.2d 1241 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “2(a)(2) and RCW 13.34.150. This motion was denied. Following the entry of the order in the dependency *890 review, Mrs.”
In Re Hs, 973 P.2d 474 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “" RCW 13.34.150 provides for changes to court orders "upon a showing of a change in circumstance[.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Paulos, 166 Wash. App. 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “34.120.[ 2 ] f35 Here, there was no showing of a change of circumstances.”
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.