Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.110 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The court may appoint an attorney to represent the interests of a minor or dependent child with respect to provision for the parenting plan in an action for dissolution of marriage or domestic partnership, legal separation, or declaration concerning the validity of a marriage or domestic partnership. The court shall enter an order for costs, fees, and disbursements in favor of the child's attorney. The order shall be made against either or both parents, except that, if both parties are indigent, the costs, fees, and disbursements shall be borne by the county.
Notes:
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1975–2019 · leading case: In Re Parentage of LB, 122 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2005).
In Re Parentage of LB, 122 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2005). “100(6); RCW 26.09.110; KING COUNTY LOCAL FAMILY LAW RULE 13.”
Carvin v. Britain, 155 Wash. 2d 679 (Wash. 2005). “100(6); RCW 26.09.110; King County Local Family Law Rule 13.”
King v. King, 174 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 26.09.110. Additionally, the trial court may seek the advice of professional personnel concerning the provisions of a parenting plan.”
Childers v. Childers, 575 P.2d 201 (Wash. 1978). “That "dependent" child does not mean "minor" child is apparent from RCW 26.09.110, which states in part: The court may appoint an attorney to represent the interest of a minor or dependent child with respect to his custody, support, and visitation.”
Harrington v. Pailthorp, 841 P.2d 1258 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “020(10); RCW 26.09.110. As Harrington concedes in his own affidavit, a guardian ad litem was in fact appointed during the course of the modification proceeding.”
In re the Marriage of King, 162 Wash. 2d 378 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 26.09.110. Additionally, the trial court may seek the advice of professional personnel concerning the provisions of a parenting plan.”
Chapman v. Perera, 704 P.2d 1224 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “Moreover, the trial court found that by not requesting that the trial be delayed until additional discovery was completed, the parties had waived their right to further pretrial discovery. Lacking in merit is the Chapmans' contention at oral argument that the trial court erred…”
Wildermuth v. Wildermuth, 542 P.2d 463 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “We therefore remand the cause for a factual determination of the effect of the mother’s admitted illicit conduct upon the welfare of the children.”
In Re the Marriage of Nordby, 705 P.2d 277 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “In these circumstances we believe application of RCW 26.09.110 was mandated. Appointment of a guardian ad litem or attorney for the minor child would have assisted the court in determining the custody issue in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the statute.”
Thompson v. Thompson, 663 P.2d 164 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “Although the statute regarding payment of the expenses of a guardian ad litem *649 (RCW 26.09.110) does not specifically address costs on appeal, we believe the criteria discussed above in connection with RCW 26.”
In Re the Marriage of Waggener, 538 P.2d 845 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “190 in awarding custody was not considered by the trial court, and that under the circumstances presented the court should have appointed an attorney for the child, as allowed by RCW 26.09.110, or should have utilized the investigative procedures authorized by RCW 26.”
Moore v. Snohomish Cnty., 774 P.2d 1218 (Wash. 1989). “RCW 26.09.110; To facilitate and promote the purposes of this chapter, the court may order or recommend the aid of physicians, psychiatrists, or other specialists or may recommend the aid of the pastor or director of any religious denomination to which the parties may belong.”
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.