Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175 (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)(a) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of a minor or dependent child when the court believes the appointment of a guardian ad litem is necessary to protect the best interests of the child in any proceeding under this chapter. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem from the court-appointed special advocate program, if that program exists in the county. The court shall attempt to match a child with special needs with a guardian ad litem who has specific training or education related to the child's individual needs. The family court services professionals may also make a recommendation to the court regarding whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed for the child.
(b) The guardian ad litem's role is to investigate and report factual information regarding the issues ordered to be reported or investigated to the court. The guardian ad litem shall always represent the best interests of the child. Guardians ad litem under this title may make recommendations based upon his or her investigation, which the court may consider and weigh in conjunction with the recommendations of all of the parties. If a child expresses a preference regarding the parenting plan, the guardian ad litem shall report the preferences to the court, together with the facts relative to whether any preferences are being expressed voluntarily and the degree of the child's understanding. The court may require the guardian ad litem to provide periodic reports to the parties regarding the status of his or her investigation. The guardian ad litem shall file his or her report at least sixty days prior to trial.
(c) The parties to the proceeding may file with the court written responses to any report filed by the guardian ad litem. The court shall consider any written responses to a report filed by the guardian ad litem, including any factual information or recommendations provided in the report.
(d) The court shall enter an order for costs, fees, and disbursements to cover the costs of the guardian ad litem. The court may order either or both parents to pay for the costs of the guardian ad litem, according to their ability to pay. If both parents are indigent, the county shall bear the cost of the guardian, subject to appropriation for guardians' ad litem services by the county legislative authority. Guardians ad litem who are not volunteers shall provide the parties with an itemized accounting of their time and billing for services each month.
(2)(a) If the guardian ad litem appointed is from the county court-appointed special advocate program, the program shall supervise any guardian ad litem assigned to the case. The court-appointed special advocate program shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings in the case.
(b) The legislative authority of each county may authorize creation of a court-appointed special advocate program. The county legislative authority may adopt rules of eligibility for court-appointed special advocate program services that are not inconsistent with this section.
(3) Each guardian ad litem program for compensated guardians ad litem and each court-appointed special advocate program shall maintain a background information record for each guardian ad litem in the program. The background information record shall include, but is not limited to, the following information:
(a) Level of formal education;
(b) General training related to the guardian ad litem's duties;
(c) Specific training related to issues potentially faced by children in dissolution, custody, paternity, and other family law proceedings;
(d) Specific training or education related to child disability or developmental issues;
(e) Number of years' experience as a guardian ad litem;
(f) Number of appointments as a guardian ad litem and county or counties of appointment;
(g) The names of any counties in which the person was removed from a guardian ad litem registry pursuant to a grievance action, and the name of the court and the cause number of any case in which the court has removed the person for cause;
(h) Founded allegations of abuse or neglect as defined in RCW 26.44.020;
(i) The results of an examination that shall consist of a background check as allowed through the Washington state criminal records privacy act under RCW 10.97.050 and the Washington state patrol criminal identification system under RCW 43.43.832 through 43.43.834. This background check shall be done through the Washington state patrol criminal identification section; and
(j) Criminal history, as defined in RCW 9.94A.030, for the period covering ten years prior to the appointment.
The background information record shall be updated annually. As a condition of appointment, the guardian ad litem's background information record shall be made available to the court. If the appointed guardian ad litem is not a member of a guardian ad litem program the person appointed as guardian ad litem shall provide the background information record to the court.
Upon appointment, the guardian ad litem, court-appointed special advocate program or guardian ad litem program, shall provide the parties or their attorneys with a copy of the background information record. The portion of the background information record containing the results of the criminal background check and the criminal history shall not be disclosed to the parties or their attorneys. The background information record shall not include identifying information that may be used to harm a guardian ad litem, such as home addresses and home telephone numbers, and for volunteer guardians ad litem the court may allow the use of maiden names or pseudonyms as necessary for their safety.
(4) When a court-appointed special advocate or volunteer guardian ad litem is requested on a case, the program shall give the court the name of the person it recommends. The court shall immediately appoint the person recommended by the program.
(5) If a party in a case reasonably believes the court-appointed special advocate or volunteer guardian ad litem is inappropriate or unqualified, the party may request a review of the appointment by the program. The program must complete the review within five judicial days and remove any appointee for good cause. If the party seeking the review is not satisfied with the outcome of the review, the party may file a motion with the court for the removal of the court-appointed special advocate or volunteer guardian ad litem on the grounds the advocate or volunteer is inappropriate or unqualified.
[ 2011 c 292 s 6; 2009 c 480 s 3; 2000 c 124 s 6; 1996 c 249 s 15; 1993 c 289 s 4; 1991 c 367 s 17.]

Notes:

Grievance rules—2000 c 124: See note following RCW 13.34.100.
Intent—1996 c 249: See note following RCW 2.56.030.
Severability—Effective date—Captions not law—1991 c 367: See notes following RCW 26.09.015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Bobbitt, 144 P.3d 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of Bobbitt, 144 P.3d 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Following public outcry about perceived unfair and improper practices involving GALs, the legislature adopted RCW 26.12.175 to govern the interactions of courts and GALs and our Supreme Court adopted the GALR.”
In re the Marriage of Bobbitt, 135 Wash. App. 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Following public outcry about perceived unfair and improper practices involving GALs, the legislature adopted RCW 26.12.175 to govern the interactions of courts and GALs, and our Supreme Court adopted the GALR.”
In Re the Marriage of Swanson, 944 P.2d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “090(4)(a)-(e); RCW 26.12.175(1)(b); SPR 98.16(c)(1) (guardian investigates in analogous contexts).”
Fernando v. Nieswandt, 940 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.12.175(3). If a party believes that the guardian is not qualified to render opinions in the matter, that party may move to substitute the guardian within three days of the appointment.”
Fernando v. Nieswandt, 940 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “However, her recommendations are expressly admissible under RCW 26.12.175(1)(b). She developed her opinion about the appropriate visitation after observing A.”
King v. King, 174 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 26.12.175(1)(d). In counties where a unified family court is established, state law authorizes the appointment of court facilitators "to provide assistance to parties with matters before the unified family court.”
In re the Marriage of King, 162 Wash. 2d 378 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 26.12.175(1)(d). In counties where a unified family court is established, state law authorizes the appointment of court facilitators “to provide assistance to parties with matters before the unified family court.”
Luby v. Da Silva, 153 Wash. 2d 646 (Wash. 2005). “130 provides in part that “the court may order an investigation and report concerning custodian arrangements for the child, or may appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to RCW 26.12.175, or both.” RCW 26.10.130(1).”
In Re Brown, 105 P.3d 991 (Wash. 2005). “130 provides in part that "the court may order an investigation and report concerning custodian arrangements for the child, or may appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to RCW 26.12.175, or both." RCW 26.10.130(1).”
In Re Custody of AC, 153 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “10.130(1), (2). The investigator's report may be received in evidence at the hearing, as long as it meets the notice requirements of the statute.”
David N. v. Holly Marie C., 137 Wash. App. 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “In preparing the report, the investigator (the GAL or someone from a professional social service organization) may consult with “medical, psychiatric, or other expert persons” who have served the child. RCW 26.10.130(1), (2). The investigator’s report may be received in evidence…”
In Re Custody of SHB, 74 P.3d 674 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “220 provides: (1) The court may order an investigation and report concerning parenting arrangements for the child, or may appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to RCW 26.12.175, or both. The investigation and report may be made by the guardian ad litem, the staff of the juvenile…”
Show all 47 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175(1)(a) — 5 cases
In Re Parenting & Support of Sml, 173 P.3d 967 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Michaelangelo Borrello v. Chandra Long (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Laurence Coates Bateman, V. Phavy Pel (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
In Re The Parentage Of Ejr: Michael John Roderick, Jr. v. Brenda Jean Lynn (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
In Re The Marriage Of: Teresa G. Harkenrider v. Christopher A. Wodja (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175(1)(b) — 14 cases
In Re Marriage of Bobbitt, 144 P.3d 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Following public outcry about perceived unfair and improper practices involving GALs, the legislature adopted RCW 26.12.175 to govern the interactions of courts and GALs and our Supreme Court adopted the GALR.”
In Re the Marriage of Swanson, 944 P.2d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “090(4)(a)-(e); RCW 26.12.175(1)(b); SPR 98.16(c)(1) (guardian investigates in analogous contexts).”
Fernando v. Nieswandt, 940 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “However, her recommendations are expressly admissible under RCW 26.12.175(1)(b). She developed her opinion about the appropriate visitation after observing A.”
In Re Custody of AC, 153 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “10.130(1), (2). The investigator's report may be received in evidence at the hearing, as long as it meets the notice requirements of the statute.”
In Re Parenting & Support of Sml, 173 P.3d 967 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175(1)(d) — 5 cases
In Re Marriage of Bobbitt, 144 P.3d 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Following public outcry about perceived unfair and improper practices involving GALs, the legislature adopted RCW 26.12.175 to govern the interactions of courts and GALs and our Supreme Court adopted the GALR.”
King v. King, 174 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 26.12.175(1)(d). In counties where a unified family court is established, state law authorizes the appointment of court facilitators "to provide assistance to parties with matters before the unified family court.”
In re the Marriage of King, 162 Wash. 2d 378 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 26.12.175(1)(d). In counties where a unified family court is established, state law authorizes the appointment of court facilitators “to provide assistance to parties with matters before the unified family court.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Todd T. Hardin v. Karen E. Lofgren (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Emery Hammond v. Stephanie Bannick (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175(3) — 2 cases
Fernando v. Nieswandt, 940 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 26.12.175(3). If a party believes that the guardian is not qualified to render opinions in the matter, that party may move to substitute the guardian within three days of the appointment.”
Fernando v. Nieswandt, 940 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “However, her recommendations are expressly admissible under RCW 26.12.175(1)(b). She developed her opinion about the appropriate visitation after observing A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175(4) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Swanson, 944 P.2d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “090(4)(a)-(e); RCW 26.12.175(1)(b); SPR 98.16(c)(1) (guardian investigates in analogous contexts).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175(5) — 1 case
In Re: Christina Maria Quintanar v. Gregorio Quintanar (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175(b) — 1 case
Jennifer Wiley v. David Wiley (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175(l)(a) — 1 case
In re the Parenting & Support of S.M.L., 142 Wash. App. 110 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175(l)(b) — 5 cases
In re the Marriage of Bobbitt, 135 Wash. App. 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Following public outcry about perceived unfair and improper practices involving GALs, the legislature adopted RCW 26.12.175 to govern the interactions of courts and GALs, and our Supreme Court adopted the GALR.”
In Re the Marriage of Swanson, 944 P.2d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “090(4)(a)-(e); RCW 26.12.175(1)(b); SPR 98.16(c)(1) (guardian investigates in analogous contexts).”
Fernando v. Nieswandt, 940 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 26.12.175(3). If a party believes that the guardian is not qualified to render opinions in the matter, that party may move to substitute the guardian within three days of the appointment.”
David N. v. Holly Marie C., 137 Wash. App. 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “In preparing the report, the investigator (the GAL or someone from a professional social service organization) may consult with “medical, psychiatric, or other expert persons” who have served the child. RCW 26.10.130(1), (2). The investigator’s report may be received in evidence…”
In re the Parenting & Support of S.M.L., 142 Wash. App. 110 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.12.175(l)(d) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of Bobbitt, 135 Wash. App. 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Following public outcry about perceived unfair and improper practices involving GALs, the legislature adopted RCW 26.12.175 to govern the interactions of courts and GALs, and our Supreme Court adopted the GALR.”
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.