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

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.233 (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) Any party may request the court under RCW 13.34.150 to modify or terminate a dependency guardianship order. Notice of any motion to modify or terminate the guardianship shall be served on all other parties, including any agency that was responsible for supervising the child's placement at the time the guardianship petition was filed. Notice in all cases shall be served upon the department. If the department was not previously a party to the guardianship proceeding, the department shall nevertheless have the right to: (a) Initiate a proceeding to modify or terminate a guardianship; and (b) intervene at any stage of such a proceeding.
(2) The guardianship may be modified or terminated upon the motion of any party, or the department if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a substantial change of circumstances subsequent to the establishment of the guardianship and that it is in the child's best interest to modify or terminate the guardianship. The court shall hold a hearing on the motion before modifying or terminating a guardianship.
(3) Upon entry of an order terminating the guardianship, the dependency guardian shall not have any rights or responsibilities with respect to the child and shall not have legal standing to participate as a party in further dependency proceedings pertaining to the child. The court may allow the child's dependency guardian to attend dependency review proceedings pertaining to the child for the sole purpose of providing information about the child to the court.
(4) Upon entry of an order terminating the guardianship, the child shall remain dependent and the court shall either return the child to the child's parent or order the child into the custody, control, and care of the department for placement in a foster home or group care facility licensed pursuant to chapter 74.15 RCW or in a home not required to be licensed pursuant to such chapter. The court shall not place a child in the custody of the child's parent unless the court finds that reasons for removal as set forth in RCW 13.34.130 no longer exist and that such placement is in the child's best interest. The court shall thereafter conduct reviews as provided in RCW 13.34.138 and, where applicable, shall hold a permanency planning hearing in accordance with RCW 13.34.145.
[ 2018 c 284 s 23; 2009 c 520 s 38; 2000 c 122 s 30; 1995 c 311 s 24; 1994 c 288 s 8; 1981 c 195 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1996–2015 · leading case: Sheikh v. Choe, 128 P.3d 574 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sheikh v. Choe, 128 P.3d 574 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 13.34.233(2). In December 1998 and February 1999, Daniels asked that Anderson's dependency guardianship be terminated and that he be removed from her home due to his criminal behavior and general incorrigibility.”
Aba Sheikh v. Choe, 156 Wash. 2d 441 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 13.34.233(2). In December 1998 and February 1999, Daniels asked that Anderson’s dependency guardianship be terminated and that he be removed from her home due to his criminal behavior and general incorrigibility.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. T.P., 182 Wash. 2d 689 (Wash. 2015). “the court in the dependency action, and the circumstances of the parent have changed to such a degree that returning the child to the custody of the parent no longer creates a risk of harm to the child’s health, welfare, and safety; (b) The child, if age twelve years or older,…”
In Re Dependency of AC, 98 P.3d 89 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[16] RCW 13.34.233(2). [17] RCW 13.34.234. [18] See Families for Kids Partnership, Washington Permanency Report 1998-2003 at 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.”
Hauswirth v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 913 P.2d 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The court appoints a person or agency as guardian and (1) defines the guardian’s rights and responsibilities concerning the care, custody, and control of the child, (2) sets an "appropriate frequency of visitation” between parent and child, and (3) specifies the nature of…”
In Re Dependency of RV, 54 P.3d 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “The State claims that if Fazelinia is denied visitation by the guardians she can return to the trial court and seek modification of the guardianship order under RCW 13.34.233. Even if the State were correct, it is not an alternative to the court's entry of a proper order.”
Fazelinia v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 113 Wash. App. 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “The State claims that if Fazelinia is denied visitation by the guardians she can return to the trial court and seek modification of the guardianship order under RCW 13.34.233. Even if the State were correct, it is not an alternative to the court’s entry of a proper order.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Chaffin, 123 Wash. App. 244 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 13.34.233(2). RCW 13.34.234. See Families foe Kids Oversight Committee, Washington Permanency Report/ Families for Kids Partnership 1998-2003, at 13.”
Dep Of C.a. v. Dshs State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “70121-5-1/9 RCW 13.34.233(2) permits a court to modify or terminate a guardianship "upon the motion of any party .”
In re Welfare of A.W. (Wash. 2015). “Former RCW 13.34.233(2) (2000). If the court found a substantial change in circumstances of any party since the establishment of guardianship and that termination would be in the child's best interest, a guardianship was terminated.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.233(1) — 1 case
Hauswirth v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 913 P.2d 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The court appoints a person or agency as guardian and (1) defines the guardian’s rights and responsibilities concerning the care, custody, and control of the child, (2) sets an "appropriate frequency of visitation” between parent and child, and (3) specifies the nature of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.34.233(2) — 7 cases
Sheikh v. Choe, 128 P.3d 574 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 13.34.233(2). In December 1998 and February 1999, Daniels asked that Anderson's dependency guardianship be terminated and that he be removed from her home due to his criminal behavior and general incorrigibility.”
Aba Sheikh v. Choe, 156 Wash. 2d 441 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 13.34.233(2). In December 1998 and February 1999, Daniels asked that Anderson’s dependency guardianship be terminated and that he be removed from her home due to his criminal behavior and general incorrigibility.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. T.P., 182 Wash. 2d 689 (Wash. 2015). “the court in the dependency action, and the circumstances of the parent have changed to such a degree that returning the child to the custody of the parent no longer creates a risk of harm to the child’s health, welfare, and safety; (b) The child, if age twelve years or older,…”
In Re Dependency of AC, 98 P.3d 89 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[16] RCW 13.34.233(2). [17] RCW 13.34.234. [18] See Families for Kids Partnership, Washington Permanency Report 1998-2003 at 13.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Chaffin, 123 Wash. App. 244 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 13.34.233(2). RCW 13.34.234. See Families foe Kids Oversight Committee, Washington Permanency Report/ Families for Kids Partnership 1998-2003, at 13.”
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.