Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.38.070 (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) In any involuntary child custody proceeding seeking the foster care placement of, or the termination of parental rights to, a child in which the petitioning party or the court knows, or has reason to know, that the child is or may be an Indian child as defined in this chapter, the petitioning party shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child's tribe or tribes, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by use of a mandatory Indian child welfare act notice addressed to the tribal agent designated by the Indian child's tribe or tribes for receipt of Indian child welfare act notice, as published by the bureau of Indian affairs in the federal register. If the identity or location of the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot be determined, such notice shall be given to the secretary of the interior by registered mail, return receipt requested, in accordance with the regulations of the bureau of Indian affairs. The secretary of the interior has fifteen days after receipt to provide the requisite notice to the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe. No foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding shall be held until at least ten days after receipt of notice by the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe. The parent or Indian custodian or the tribe shall, upon request, be granted up to twenty additional days to prepare for the proceeding.

(2) The determination of the Indian status of a child shall be made as soon as practicable in order to serve the best interests of the Indian child and protect the interests of the child's tribe.

(3)(a) A written determination by an Indian tribe that a child is a member of or eligible for membership in that tribe, or testimony by the tribe attesting to such status shall be conclusive that the child is an Indian child;

(b) A written determination by an Indian tribe that a child is not a member of or eligible for membership in that tribe, or testimony by the tribe attesting to such status shall be conclusive that the child is not a member or eligible for membership in that tribe. Such determinations are presumptively those of the tribe where submitted in the form of a tribal resolution, or signed by or testified to by the person(s) authorized by the tribe's governing body to speak for the tribe, or by the tribe's agent designated to receive notice under the federal Indian child welfare act where such designation is published in the federal register;

(c) Where a tribe provides no response to notice under RCW 13.38.070, such nonresponse shall not constitute evidence that the child is not a member or eligible for membership. Provided, however, that under such circumstances the party asserting application of the federal Indian child welfare act, or this chapter, will have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the child is an Indian child.

(4)(a) Where a child has been determined not to be an Indian child, any party to the proceeding, or an Indian tribe that subsequently determines the child is a member, may, during the pendency of any child custody proceeding to which this chapter or the federal Indian child welfare act applies, move the court for redetermination of the child's Indian status based upon new evidence, redetermination by the child's tribe, or newly conferred federal recognition of the tribe.

(b) This subsection (4) does not affect the rights afforded under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1914.

[ 2017 c 269 s 1; 2011 c 309 s 7.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 471 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 471 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 13× “§ 1912 (a); RCW 13.38.070. In this case, the application of ICWA and WICWA turns on whether there was a “reason to know” that Z.”

R.B. v. C.W., 354 P.3d 46 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 1912 ; RCW 13.38.070, .130. 2. Active Efforts to Prevent Family Breakup ¶15 One of ICWA’s requirements is that any party seeking an involuntary termination of a parent’s rights to an Indian child must “satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial…”

In re Dependency of Z.J.G. (Wash. 2020). · cites it 13× “§ 1912 (a); RCW 13.38.070. In this case, the application of ICWA and WICWA turns on whether there was a “reason to know” that Z.”

In re the Parental Rights to K.J.B., 188 Wash. App. 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 1903 (4); see also RCW 13.38.040(7). The Department must notify “the Indian child’s tribe” or the BIA 1 of such pending proceedings and the tribe’s right to intervene “where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved.”

Dependency Of: Z.j.g. 9/3/16, Scott James Greer v. Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 9× “Preliminary contacts for the purpose of making a good faith effort to determine a child’s possible Indian status, do not constitute legal notice as reguired by RCW 13.38.070.”) (emphasis added). 23 No.”

In Re The Dependency Of: G.l.b.: C.f., App. v. State Of Wa., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “Preliminary contacts for the purpose of making a good faith effort to determine a child's possible Indian status, do not constitute legal notice as required by RCW 13.38.070. 8 No. 77311-9-1/9 After this appeal was filed, the State moved to supplement the record2 with the…”

Dep Of A.s., J.w., R.s (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “at the child is an Indian child; (2) Any participant in the proceeding, officer of the court involved in the proceeding, Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court that it has discovered information indicating that the child is an Indian child; (3) The child…”

In the Matter of the Dependency of: S.S.B. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “RCW 13.38.070(1) (emphasis added). Here, the Department’s notice to Chippewa Cree was in substantially the same form as the Washington Indian Child Welfare Act Notice form.”

In Re Arjh, Alonso Enrique Hernandez v. Dshs State Of Wa (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “4 Where the court has "reason to know" that an "Indian child" is involved in a termination proceeding, ICWA requires that the Department notify the tribe of the pending proceedings and the tribe's right to intervene.”

In the Matter of the Dependency of: A.L.K. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Under RCW 13.38.070(4)(a), the juvenile court may reassess the issue of Indian child status at any time during the pendency of a dependency proceeding.”

In The Guardianship Of L.c. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 1912 (a); see also RCW 13.38.070(1) (“In any involuntary child custody proceeding seeking the foster care placement of, or the termination of parental rights to, a child in which the petitioning party or the court knows, or has reason to know, that the child is or may be an…”

In the Matter of the Dependency of: R.D. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 1912 (a); RCW 13.38.070(1); 25 C.F.R. § 23.107 (b)(2).”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.38.070(1) — 11 cases

In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 471 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2020). “§ 1912 (a); RCW 13.38.070. In this case, the application of ICWA and WICWA turns on whether there was a “reason to know” that Z.”

In re Dependency of Z.J.G. (Wash. 2020). “§ 1912 (a); RCW 13.38.070. In this case, the application of ICWA and WICWA turns on whether there was a “reason to know” that Z.”

Dependency Of: Z.j.g. 9/3/16, Scott James Greer v. Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “Preliminary contacts for the purpose of making a good faith effort to determine a child’s possible Indian status, do not constitute legal notice as reguired by RCW 13.38.070.”) (emphasis added). 23 No.”

Dep Of A.s., J.w., R.s (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “at the child is an Indian child; (2) Any participant in the proceeding, officer of the court involved in the proceeding, Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court that it has discovered information indicating that the child is an Indian child; (3) The child…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.38.070(2) — 3 cases

In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 471 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2020). “§ 1912 (a); RCW 13.38.070. In this case, the application of ICWA and WICWA turns on whether there was a “reason to know” that Z.”

In re Dependency of Z.J.G. (Wash. 2020). “§ 1912 (a); RCW 13.38.070. In this case, the application of ICWA and WICWA turns on whether there was a “reason to know” that Z.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.38.070(3)(a) — 3 cases

In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 471 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2020). “§ 1912 (a); RCW 13.38.070. In this case, the application of ICWA and WICWA turns on whether there was a “reason to know” that Z.”

In re Dependency of Z.J.G. (Wash. 2020). “§ 1912 (a); RCW 13.38.070. In this case, the application of ICWA and WICWA turns on whether there was a “reason to know” that Z.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.38.070(3)(b) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.38.070(4)(a) — 1 case

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.