Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162 (2026)

Special sex offender disposition alternative

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A juvenile offender is eligible for the special sex offender disposition alternative when:

(a) The offender is found to have committed a sex offense, other than a sex offense that is also a serious violent offense as defined by RCW 9.94A.030, and the offender has no history of a prior sex offense; or

(b) The offender is found to have committed assault in the fourth degree with sexual motivation, and the offender has no history of a prior sex offense.

(2) If the court finds the offender is eligible for this alternative, the court, on its own motion or the motion of the state or the respondent, may order an examination to determine whether the respondent is amenable to treatment.

(a) The report of the examination shall include at a minimum the following:

(i) The respondent's version of the facts and the official version of the facts;

(ii) The respondent's offense history;

(iii) An assessment of problems in addition to alleged deviant behaviors;

(iv) The respondent's social, educational, and employment situation;

(v) Other evaluation measures used.

The report shall set forth the sources of the evaluator's information.

(b) The examiner shall assess and report regarding the respondent's amenability to treatment and relative risk to the community. A proposed treatment plan shall be provided and shall include, at a minimum:

(i) The frequency and type of contact between the offender and therapist;

(ii) Specific issues to be addressed in the treatment and description of planned treatment modalities;

(iii) Monitoring plans, including any requirements regarding living conditions, lifestyle requirements, and monitoring by family members, legal guardians, or others;

(iv) Anticipated length of treatment; and

(v) Recommended crime-related prohibitions.

(c) For good cause shown, the court on its own motion may order, or on a motion by the state shall order, a second examination regarding the offender's amenability to treatment. The evaluator shall be selected by the party making the motion.

(3) After receipt of reports of the examination, the court shall then consider whether the offender and the community will benefit from use of this special sex offender disposition alternative and consider the victim's opinion whether the offender should receive a treatment disposition under this section. If the court determines that this special sex offender disposition alternative is appropriate, then the court shall impose a determinate disposition within the standard range for the offense, or if the court concludes, and enters reasons for its conclusions, that such disposition would cause a manifest injustice, the court shall impose a disposition under option D, and the court may suspend the execution of the disposition and place the offender on community supervision for at least two years.

(4) As a condition of the suspended disposition, the court may impose the conditions of community supervision and other conditions, including up to 30 days of confinement and requirements that the offender do any one or more of the following:

(a) Devote time to a specific education, employment, or occupation;

(b) Undergo available outpatient sex offender treatment for up to two years, or inpatient sex offender treatment not to exceed the standard range of confinement for that offense. A community mental health center may not be used for such treatment unless it has an appropriate program designed for sex offender treatment. The respondent shall not change sex offender treatment providers or treatment conditions without first notifying the prosecutor, the probation counselor, and the court, and shall not change providers without court approval after a hearing if the prosecutor or probation counselor object to the change;

(c) Remain within prescribed geographical boundaries and notify the court or the probation counselor prior to any change in the offender's address, educational program, or employment;

(d) Report to the prosecutor and the probation counselor prior to any change in a sex offender treatment provider. This change shall have prior approval by the court;

(e) Report as directed to the court and a probation counselor;

(f) Pay restitution and perform community restitution, or any combination thereof;

(g) Make restitution to the victim for the cost of any counseling reasonably related to the offense; or

(h) Comply with the conditions of any court-ordered probation bond.

(5) If the court orders 24 hour, continuous monitoring of the offender while on probation, the court shall include the basis for this condition in its findings.

(6)(a) The court must order the offender not to attend the public or approved private elementary, middle, or high school attended by the victim or the victim's siblings.

(b) The parents or legal guardians of the offender are responsible for transportation or other costs associated with the offender's change of school that would otherwise be paid by the school district.

(c) The court shall send notice of the disposition and restriction on attending the same school as the victim or victim's siblings to the public or approved private school the juvenile will attend, if known, or if unknown, to the approved private schools and the public school district board of directors of the district in which the juvenile resides or intends to reside. This notice must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 10 calendar days after entry of the disposition.

(7)(a) The sex offender treatment provider shall submit quarterly reports on the respondent's progress in treatment to the court and the parties. The reports shall reference the treatment plan and include at a minimum the following: Dates of attendance, respondent's compliance with requirements, treatment activities, the respondent's relative progress in treatment, and any other material specified by the court at the time of the disposition.

(b) At the time of the disposition, the court may set treatment review hearings as the court considers appropriate.

(c) Except as provided in this subsection, examinations and treatment ordered pursuant to this subsection shall be conducted by qualified professionals as described under (d) of this subsection, certified sex offender treatment providers, or certified affiliate sex offender treatment providers under chapter 18.155 RCW.

(d) A sex offender therapist who examines or treats a juvenile sex offender pursuant to this subsection does not have to be certified by the department of health pursuant to chapter 18.155 RCW if the therapist is a professional licensed under chapter 18.225 or 18.83 RCW and the treatment employed is evidence-based for sex offender treatment, or if the court finds that: (i) The offender has already moved to another state or plans to move to another state for reasons other than circumventing the certification requirements; (ii) no certified sex offender treatment providers or certified affiliate sex offender treatment providers are available for treatment within a reasonable geographical distance of the offender's home; and (iii) the evaluation and treatment plan comply with this subsection and the rules adopted by the department of health.

(8)(a) If the offender violates any condition of the disposition or the court finds that the respondent is failing to make satisfactory progress in treatment, the court may revoke the suspension and order execution of the disposition or the court may impose a penalty of up to 30 days confinement for violating conditions of the disposition.

(b) The court may order both execution of the disposition and up to 30 days confinement for the violation of the conditions of the disposition.

(c) The court shall give credit for any confinement time previously served if that confinement was for the offense for which the suspension is being revoked.

(9) For purposes of this section, "victim" means any person who has sustained emotional, psychological, physical, or financial injury to person or property as a direct result of the crime charged. "Victim" may also include a known parent or guardian of a victim who is a minor child unless the parent or guardian is the perpetrator of the offense.

(10) The respondent or the parent, guardian, or other person having custody of the respondent shall not be required to pay the cost of any evaluation or treatment of the respondent ordered under this section.

(11) A disposition entered under this section is not appealable under RCW 13.40.230.

[ 2023 c 449 s 17; 2023 c 150 s 8; 2020 c 249 s 1; 2011 c 338 s 3.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2023 c 150 s 8 and by 2023 c 449 s 17, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).

Effective date—2023 c 449: See note following RCW 13.40.058.

Findings—Intent—2023 c 150: See note following RCW 9A.44.130.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2012–2025 · leading case: State v. A.G.S., 340 P.3d 830 (Wash. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. A.G.S., 340 P.3d 830 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 7× “In this case, we address whether a particular type of report about a juvenile offender- — a special sex offender disposition alternative (SSODA) evaluation, RCW 13.40.162 — should be filed in the official juvenile court file and therefore be open to the public.”

Doe P v. Thurston Cnty., 199 Wash. App. 280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “670 and RCW 13.40.162, respectively. 3 Zink made a second request for all sex offender “[sentencing and [j]udgment documents’’ held in Thurston County and for all level I noncompliant or transient sex offenders’ registration forms in December.”

State v. Sanchez, 306 P.3d 935 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 4× “See RCW 13.40.162. If a juvenile is SSODA eligible, the court may order an evaluation to determine the offender’s amenability to treatment.”

State v. T.J.S.-M., 441 P.3d 1181 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 8× “Finally, this issue is likely to recur because manifest injustice dispositions are prevalent in juvenile proceedings and enhanced sentences are often challenged.”

Doe v. Pierce Cnty., 433 P.3d 838 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 9× “670, and special sex offender disposition alternative (SSODA), RCW 13.40.162, evaluations, victim impact statements, registration forms for "all sex offenders registered in Pierce County," and a "[l]ist and/or database of all sex offenders registered in Pierce County.”

State v. Bacon, 415 P.3d 207 (Wash. 2018). “030, and has no history of a prior sex offense, the court may impose the special sex offender disposition alternative under RCW 13.40.162." RCW 13.40.160(3). 9 "If the juvenile offender is subject to a standard range disposition of local sanctions or 15 to 36 weeks of…”

State v. M.S., 484 P.3d 1231 (Wash. 2021). “160(1)(a); see also RCW 13.40.162(3), .165(6)(b). Both the JJA and the SRA also explicitly list aggravating factors used to extend sentences beyond the standard range.”

State v. Finch, 326 P.3d 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “RCW 13.40.162. Finch was previously convicted of two sex offenses against a female child.”

State v. T.J.S.-M. (Wash. 2019). · cites it 8× “Finally, this issue is likely to recur because manifest injustice dispositions are prevalent in juvenile proceedings and enhanced sentences are often challenged. Based on these eonsiderations, we proceed to the merits of the case.”

John Doe v. Donna Zink (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “550 (2011), that the superior court properly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact that the Does had satisfied RCW 42.”

State v. Sanchez, 279 P.3d 999 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 13.40.162(2) provides: (a) The report of the examination shall include at a minimum the following: (i) The respondent’s version of the facts and the official version of the facts; (ii) The respondent’s offense history; (iii) An assessment of problems in addition to alleged…”

State v. A.G.S., 309 P.3d 600 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “See RCW 13.40.162. There was only one evaluation, not multiple evaluations, in question here.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162(1) — 3 cases

State v. A.G.S., 340 P.3d 830 (Wash. 2014). “In this case, we address whether a particular type of report about a juvenile offender- — a special sex offender disposition alternative (SSODA) evaluation, RCW 13.40.162 — should be filed in the official juvenile court file and therefore be open to the public.”

State Of Washington v. Chase M. Breland (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

State v. A.G.S. (Wash. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162(10) — 3 cases

State v. T.J.S.-M., 441 P.3d 1181 (Wash. 2019). “Finally, this issue is likely to recur because manifest injustice dispositions are prevalent in juvenile proceedings and enhanced sentences are often challenged.”

State v. T.J.S.-M. (Wash. 2019). “Finally, this issue is likely to recur because manifest injustice dispositions are prevalent in juvenile proceedings and enhanced sentences are often challenged. Based on these eonsiderations, we proceed to the merits of the case.”

State of Washington v. Trevon J. Solomon-McDonald (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162(2) — 8 cases

Doe v. Pierce Cnty., 433 P.3d 838 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “670, and special sex offender disposition alternative (SSODA), RCW 13.40.162, evaluations, victim impact statements, registration forms for "all sex offenders registered in Pierce County," and a "[l]ist and/or database of all sex offenders registered in Pierce County.”

Doe P v. Thurston Cnty., 199 Wash. App. 280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “670 and RCW 13.40.162, respectively. 3 Zink made a second request for all sex offender “[sentencing and [j]udgment documents’’ held in Thurston County and for all level I noncompliant or transient sex offenders’ registration forms in December.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162(2)(a) — 6 cases

John Doe v. Donna Zink (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “550 (2011), that the superior court properly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact that the Does had satisfied RCW 42.”

State v. Sanchez (Wash. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162(2)(a)(i) — 4 cases

State v. Sanchez, 306 P.3d 935 (Wash. 2013). “See RCW 13.40.162. If a juvenile is SSODA eligible, the court may order an evaluation to determine the offender’s amenability to treatment.”

State of Washington v. D.W.C. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

State v. Sanchez (Wash. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162(2)(a)(iv) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162(2)(b) — 4 cases

State v. Sanchez, 306 P.3d 935 (Wash. 2013). “See RCW 13.40.162. If a juvenile is SSODA eligible, the court may order an evaluation to determine the offender’s amenability to treatment.”

State v. Sanchez (Wash. 2013).

State v. A.G.S. (Wash. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162(3) — 8 cases

State v. Sanchez, 306 P.3d 935 (Wash. 2013). “See RCW 13.40.162. If a juvenile is SSODA eligible, the court may order an evaluation to determine the offender’s amenability to treatment.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162(7)(c) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162(8) — 1 case

State of Washington v. A.M.W., 545 P.3d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.162(8)(a) — 2 cases

State Of Washington v. B.b. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

State Of Washington v. V.a.c. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

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.