Wash. Rev. Code » Title 13 · Chapter 13.34

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, after hearings pursuant to RCW 13.34.110 or 13.34.130, the court may enter an order terminating all parental rights to a child only if the court finds that:
(a)(i) The allegations contained in the petition as provided in RCW 13.34.180(1) are established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; or
(ii) The provisions of RCW 13.34.180(1) (a), (b), (e), and (f) are established beyond a reasonable doubt and if so, then RCW 13.34.180(1) (c) and (d) may be waived. When an infant has been abandoned, as defined in RCW 13.34.030, and the abandonment has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then RCW 13.34.180(1) (c) and (d) may be waived; or
(iii) The allegation under *RCW 13.34.180(2) is established beyond a reasonable doubt. In determining whether RCW 13.34.180(1) (e) and (f) are established beyond a reasonable doubt, the court shall consider whether one or more of the aggravated circumstances listed in RCW 13.34.132 exist; or
(iv) The allegation under *RCW 13.34.180(3) is established beyond a reasonable doubt; and
(b) Such an order is in the best interests of the child.
(2) The provisions of chapter 13.38 RCW must be followed in any proceeding under this chapter for termination of the parent-child relationship of an Indian child as defined in RCW 13.38.040.
[ 2011 c 309 s 30; 2010 c 288 s 2; 2000 c 122 s 26; 1998 c 314 s 5; 1993 c 412 s 3; 1992 c 145 s 15; 1990 c 284 s 33; 1979 c 155 s 48; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 47.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 13.34.180 was amended by 2013 c 173 s 4, changing subsections (2) and (3) to subsections (3) and (4), respectively.
Finding—Effective date—1990 c 284: See notes following RCW 74.13.250.
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 352 cases (54 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: In Re Welfare of AB
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Welfare of AB (2010) wash · cites it 7× “180(1) and RCW 13.34.190, a Washington court uses a two-step process when deciding whether to terminate the right of a parent to relate to his or her natural child.”
Salas v. Department of Social & Health Services (2010) wash · cites it 6× “According to RCW 13.34.190, the second step is for the court to ascertain the best interests of the child.”
In re the Welfare of M.R.H. (2008) washctapp · cites it 6× “RCW 13.34.190. ¶44 Ms. Hurd next contends the termination statutes, RCW 13.”
In Re Welfare of MRH (2008) washctapp · cites it 6× “Forsythe had made minimal progress in completing or utilizing the necessary services to regain custody of his children and in fact admittedly had not made any effort to see his children for two and one-half years.”
In re the Welfare of T.B. (2009) washctapp · cites it 7× “’s challenges regarding RCW 13.34.190 and former RCW 13.34.105(1).”
In re the Parental Rights to K.M.M. (2016) wash · cites it 3× “ll necessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered or provided; (e) That there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be…”
Daniel B. v. Department of Social & Health Services (1995) washctapp · cites it 11× “Proof must be by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, RCW 13.34.190(1); however, subsections (3) and (4) may be waived if subsections (1), (2), (5) and (6) are established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Department of Social & Health Services v. L.H. (2016) washctapp · cites it 5× “180(l)(a) through (f) had been met and that termination was in the best interest of the child under RCW 13.34.190(1). 2 The juvenile court found, in relevant part, that [t]he mother is not currently fit to parent [E.”
Department of Social & Health Services v. Ferguson (1982) washctapp · cites it 8× “34-180(4) *868 and (5) [2] and RCW 13.34.190. [3] [1] The United States Supreme Court recently stated: The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or…”
New Hope of Washington v. Ramquist (1988) washctapp · cites it 5× “See RCW 13.34.190. Rather, RCW 13.34.190(2) gives the trial court discretion not to grant termination even when the petitioner establishes the elements of RCW 13.”
Department of Social & Health Services v. Rhyne (2001) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 13.34.190(1), (2); H.W., 92 Wn. App. at 425 .”
In Re Dependency of TR (2001) washctapp · cites it 2× “[54] RCW 13.34.190(1), (2); H.W., 92 Wash.App.”
Show all 352 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(1) — 48 cases
Department of Social & Health Services v. L.H. (2016) washctapp “180(l)(a) through (f) had been met and that termination was in the best interest of the child under RCW 13.34.190(1). 2 The juvenile court found, in relevant part, that [t]he mother is not currently fit to parent [E.”
Salas v. Department of Social & Health Services (2010) wash “According to RCW 13.34.190, the second step is for the court to ascertain the best interests of the child.”
In Re Dependency of SMH (2005) washctapp
In Re Welfare of AB (2010) wash “180(1) and RCW 13.34.190, a Washington court uses a two-step process when deciding whether to terminate the right of a parent to relate to his or her natural child.”
Department of Social & Health Services v. Rhyne (2001) washctapp “RCW 13.34.190(1), (2); H.W., 92 Wn. App. at 425 .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(1)(a) — 28 cases
In Re Dependency of TR (2001) washctapp “[54] RCW 13.34.190(1), (2); H.W., 92 Wash.App.”
In Re Welfare of CB (2006) washctapp
In Re The Dependency Of: J.d.p. And J.d.p. (2021) washctapp
In Re Dependency of SMH (2005) washctapp
Department of Social & Health Services v. Hamm (2005) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(1)(a)(i) — 71 cases
In re the Parental Rights to K.M.M. (2016) wash “ll necessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered or provided; (e) That there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be…”
In re Dependency of Z.J.G. (2020) wash
Franks v. State (In re M.-A.F.-S.) (2018) washctapp
In Re The Welfare Of D.H. And A.K. (2023) washctapp
In re Parental Rights to D.H. (2020) wash
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(1)(b) — 120 cases
In re the Parental Rights to K.M.M. (2016) wash “ll necessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered or provided; (e) That there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be…”
Department of Social & Health Services v. L.H. (2016) washctapp “180(l)(a) through (f) had been met and that termination was in the best interest of the child under RCW 13.34.190(1). 2 The juvenile court found, in relevant part, that [t]he mother is not currently fit to parent [E.”
In Re Dependency of KNJ (2011) wash
In Re The Dependency Of: J.d.p. And J.d.p. (2021) washctapp
Franks v. State (In re M.-A.F.-S.) (2018) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(1)(iv)(b) — 1 case
In Re The Dependency Of Enm, Bertram Mackey v. Dshs (2017) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(2) — 50 cases
Daniel B. v. Department of Social & Health Services (1995) washctapp “Proof must be by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, RCW 13.34.190(1); however, subsections (3) and (4) may be waived if subsections (1), (2), (5) and (6) are established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
New Hope of Washington v. Ramquist (1988) washctapp “See RCW 13.34.190. Rather, RCW 13.34.190(2) gives the trial court discretion not to grant termination even when the petitioner establishes the elements of RCW 13.”
In re the Welfare of T.B. (2009) washctapp “’s challenges regarding RCW 13.34.190 and former RCW 13.34.105(1).”
In re the Welfare of L.N.B.-L. (2010) washctapp
Salas v. Department of Social & Health Services (2010) wash “According to RCW 13.34.190, the second step is for the court to ascertain the best interests of the child.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(2)(b) — 2 cases
Dependency Of D.f.-s. Lo Saelee v. Dshs (2017) washctapp
In Re The Dep Of Lal., Arion Lamb Sr. v. Dshs, State Of Wa. (2019) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(3) — 1 case
Daniel B. v. Department of Social & Health Services (1995) washctapp “Proof must be by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, RCW 13.34.190(1); however, subsections (3) and (4) may be waived if subsections (1), (2), (5) and (6) are established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(4) — 5 cases
B.S. v. Department of Social & Health Services (1999) washctapp
In Re the Welfare of S.V.B. (1994) washctapp
Robinson v. Department of Social & Health Services (1995) washctapp
In Re Dependency of JW (1998) washctapp
In Re HS (1999) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(J)(b) — 1 case
In re the Welfare Of: A.H. (2017) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(a)(i) — 1 case
In Re The Dependency Of A.d.y. (2023) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(b) — 8 cases
In Re The Welfare Of: B.d.m.b., Brandon Burns, App v. Dcyf (2020) washctapp
In Re The Welfare Of: B.d.m.b., Brandon Burns, App v. Dcyf (2020) washctapp
In Re The Welfare Of: B.D.B.B. (2021) washctapp
In Re The Dependency Of: L.j., Dob: 12/10/13 Tijan Sumbundu v. Dshs (2018) washctapp
In Re The Dependency Of: L.j.s. Amy Sweet, App. v. State Of Wa., Dshs, Res. (2018) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(l)(a) — 13 cases
Department of Social & Health Services v. Rhyne (2001) washctapp “RCW 13.34.190(1), (2); H.W., 92 Wn. App. at 425 .”
In re the Welfare of T.B. (2009) washctapp “’s challenges regarding RCW 13.34.190 and former RCW 13.34.105(1).”
In re the Welfare of L.N.B.-L. (2010) washctapp
In re the Welfare of A.G. (2010) washctapp
Mansour v. King County (2006) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(l)(a)(i) — 12 cases
Gladin v. Department of Social & Health Services (2013) wash
In re the Welfare of R.H. (2013) washctapp
Department of Social & Health Services v. Dabbagh (2016) washctapp
In re the Welfare of S.I. (2014) washctapp
Davis v. Cox (2014) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.190(l)(b) — 14 cases
Jenkins v. Department of Social & Health Services (2011) wash
Department of Social & Health Services v. L.H. (2016) washctapp “180(l)(a) through (f) had been met and that termination was in the best interest of the child under RCW 13.34.190(1). 2 The juvenile court found, in relevant part, that [t]he mother is not currently fit to parent [E.”
Department of Social & Health Services v. E.I. (2014) washctapp
Department of Social & Health Services v. Dabbagh (2016) washctapp
In re the Parental Rights to K.M.M. (2015) 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.