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

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.165 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.165 (2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Failure by a party to comply with an order entered under this chapter is civil contempt of court as provided in RCW 7.21.030(2).
(2) A motion for contempt may be made by a parent, juvenile court personnel, or by any public agency, organization, or person having custody of the child under a court order entered pursuant to this chapter.
(3)(a) Subject to (b) of this subsection, whenever the court finds probable cause to believe, based upon consideration of a motion and the information set forth in a supporting declaration, that a child is missing from care, the court may issue an order directing law enforcement to pick up and return the child to department custody.
(b) If the department is notified of the child's whereabouts and authorizes the child's location, the court must withdraw the order directing law enforcement to pick up and return the child to department custody.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the court's inherent contempt power or curtail its exercise.
[ 2019 c 312 s 12; 2019 c 312 s 11; 2000 c 122 s 21; 1998 c 296 s 38; 1996 c 133 s 29; 1989 c 373 s 17; 1985 c 257 s 1]

Notes:

Effective date—2019 c 312 ss 4, 8, and 12: See note following RCW 7.21.030.
Effective date—Findings—Intent—2019 c 312: See notes following RCW 7.21.080.
Findings—Intent—Part headings not law—Short title—1998 c 296: See notes following RCW 74.13.025.
Findings—Short title—Intent—Construction—1996 c 133: See notes following RCW 13.32A.197.
Severability—1985 c 257: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1985 c 257 s 12.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1987–2020 · leading case: In Re the Personal Restraint of King
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Personal Restraint of King (1988) wash · cites it 10× “110, 1 is circumscribed by the specific contempt provision of the juvenile dependency statute, RCW 13.34.165. 2 The Court of Appeals did not rule on this issue, holding that under either contempt provision, the trial court had exceeded its authority.”
In Re Dependency of AK (2007) wash · cites it 6× “A later amendment, known as the "Becca Too" bill added the current "remedial" contempt sanction to RCW 13.34.165. See Ivey, supra; Laws of 1996, ch.”
In re the Dependency of A.K (2005) washctapp · cites it 9× “On several occasions, the juvenile court found that these dependent juveniles violated placement orders, found them in contempt, and imposed remedial sanctions under RCW 13.”
In Re Dependency of AK (2005) washctapp · cites it 9× “030(2)(e). On several occasions, the juvenile court found that these dependent juveniles violated placement orders, found them in contempt, and imposed remedial sanctions under RCW 13.”
In re the Dependency of A.K. (2007) wash · cites it 4× “A later amendment, known as the “Becca Too” bill, added the current “remedial” contempt sanction to RCW 13.34.165. See Ivey, supra; Laws op 1996, ch.”
In re the Interest of M.B. (2000) washctapp · cites it 2× “There is also a contempt provision for dependency proceedings, RCW 13.34.165. For a discussion of juvenile contempt procedures in other jurisdictions, see Maggie L.”
In Re Silva (2009) wash · cites it 2× “" [3] ¶ 4 In sanctioning Estevan, the commissioner found statutory remedial contempt sanctions, under RCW 13.34.165 [4] and RCW 7.21.030(2)(e), which limit a youth's detention to a seven-day maximum, inadequate.”
Perkins v. State (1999) washctapp · cites it 3× “RCW 13.34.165 provided in part: Failure by a party to comply with an order entered under this chapter is punishable as contempt.”
In Re MB (2000) washctapp “[47] There is also a contempt provision for dependency proceedings, RCW 13.34.165. For a discussion of juvenile contempt procedures in other jurisdictions, see Maggie L.”
In re the Interest of Silva (2009) wash “250(2) and RCW 13.34.165(1)). In 1998, both statutes were amended by the same legislation.”
In re the Truancy of Perkins (1999) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 13.34.165 provided in part: (1) Failure by a party to comply with an order entered under this chapter is punishable as contempt.”
In Re Interest of ADF (1997) washctapp “2d at 800 (court may not impose criminal contempt sanction under parallel dependency provision (RCW 13.34.165(2)) unless contemnor has been afforded those due process rights extended to other criminal defendants).”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.165(1) — 6 cases
In Re Dependency of AK (2007) wash “A later amendment, known as the "Becca Too" bill added the current "remedial" contempt sanction to RCW 13.34.165. See Ivey, supra; Laws of 1996, ch.”
In re the Dependency of A.K (2005) washctapp “On several occasions, the juvenile court found that these dependent juveniles violated placement orders, found them in contempt, and imposed remedial sanctions under RCW 13.”
In Re Dependency of AK (2005) washctapp “030(2)(e). On several occasions, the juvenile court found that these dependent juveniles violated placement orders, found them in contempt, and imposed remedial sanctions under RCW 13.”
In re the Dependency of A.K. (2007) wash “A later amendment, known as the “Becca Too” bill, added the current “remedial” contempt sanction to RCW 13.34.165. See Ivey, supra; Laws op 1996, ch.”
In re the Interest of Silva (2009) wash “250(2) and RCW 13.34.165(1)). In 1998, both statutes were amended by the same legislation.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.165(2) — 7 cases
In Re the Personal Restraint of King (1988) wash “110, 1 is circumscribed by the specific contempt provision of the juvenile dependency statute, RCW 13.34.165. 2 The Court of Appeals did not rule on this issue, holding that under either contempt provision, the trial court had exceeded its authority.”
In Re Dependency of AK (2007) wash “A later amendment, known as the "Becca Too" bill added the current "remedial" contempt sanction to RCW 13.34.165. See Ivey, supra; Laws of 1996, ch.”
In re the Dependency of A.K. (2007) wash “A later amendment, known as the “Becca Too” bill, added the current “remedial” contempt sanction to RCW 13.34.165. See Ivey, supra; Laws op 1996, ch.”
Perkins v. State (1999) washctapp “RCW 13.34.165 provided in part: Failure by a party to comply with an order entered under this chapter is punishable as contempt.”
In Re Interest of ADF (1997) washctapp “2d at 800 (court may not impose criminal contempt sanction under parallel dependency provision (RCW 13.34.165(2)) unless contemnor has been afforded those due process rights extended to other criminal defendants).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.165(3) — 1 case
In Re The Welfare Of: K.m. (2020) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.165(5) — 1 case
In Re The Welfare Of: K.m. (2020) washctapp
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.