Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.20.030 (2025)

Family abandonment—Penalty—Exception

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, any person who has a child dependent upon him or her for care, education or support and deserts such child in any manner whatever with intent to abandon it is guilty of the crime of family abandonment.
(2) A parent of a newborn who transfers the newborn to a qualified person at an appropriate location pursuant to RCW 13.34.360 is not subject to criminal liability under this section.
(3) The crime of family abandonment is a class C felony under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
[ 2002 c 331 s 6; 1984 c 260 s 26; 1973 1st ex.s. c 154 s 34; 1969 ex.s. c 207 s 2; 1955 c 249 s 1; 1953 c 255 s 1; 1943 c 158 s 1; 1913 c 28 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1943 s 6908. Prior: 1907 c 103 s 1, part.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2002 c 331: See notes following RCW 13.34.360.
Severability—1973 1st ex.s. c 154: See note following RCW 2.12.030.
Leaving children unattended in parked automobile: RCW 9.91.060.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: State v. Richmond, 683 P.2d 1093 (Wash. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Richmond, 683 P.2d 1093 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 17× “RCW 26.20.030 has contained the phrase, "without lawful excuse," since its enactment in 1913.”
State v. Arndt, 553 P.2d 1328 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 4× “71 (RCW 26.20.030(1) (a)-(b)), refers to the "offenses" of family desertion or nonsupport of wife or children.”
Moses v. Miller, 548 P.2d 542 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 9× “In re Estate of Musczak, *718 supra at 100; see RCW 26.20.030 (1) (b) (failure to "furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance.”
State v. Russell, 415 P.2d 503 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 9× “† Under RCW 26.20.030, defendant was charged with the felony of nonsupport of minor children under the age of 16 years.”
State v. Williams, 484 P.2d 1167 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 10× “In the instant case, defendants contend that the only duty to provide medical care for the infant child is the statutory duty set forth in RCW 26.20.030; that the court having concluded that the defendants were not guilty of “willful .”
Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 389 P.3d 731 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “" Former RCW 26.20.030(l)(b) (1973). Bauer noted that most commonly, "wilful" was used "to denote an act which is voluntary or knowing.”
State v. Bauer, 595 P.2d 544 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 4× “Appellant Bauer was charged under RCW 26.20.030 with wilful desertion/nonsupport of his two minor daughters from December 1974 through August 11, 1976.”
State v. Morgan, 936 P.2d 20 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “The family nonsupport statute was enacted in 1984 as one of many sections adopted to address the "urgent need for vigorous enforcement of child support obligations.”
State v. Russell, 442 P.2d 988 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 7× “RCW 26.20.030 provides in pertinent part: (1) Every person who: .”
State v. Aver, 745 P.2d 479 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 2× “Citing former RCW 26.20.030(1) (b). We held this statute to be unconstitutionally vague because the "without lawful excuse" element had not been sufficiently clarified by other statute or case authority.”
Armijo v. Wesselius, 440 P.2d 471 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 4× “On the contrary, we have recently held that the words "child" and "children" in our nonsupport statute, RCW 26.20.030, apply to legitimates and illegitimates alike, despite the fact that no such requirement is explicitly spelled out by the legislature.”
State v. Klein, 484 P.2d 455 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 5× “…(Revised Code of Montana, vol. 8, § 94-304-11020 (1969)), while in Washington such maximum penalty is 20 years. (RCW 26.20.030)”
Show all 39 citing cases →
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.20.030(1): 8 cases
State v. Arndt, 553 P.2d 1328 (Wash. 1976). “71 (RCW 26.20.030(1) (a)-(b)), refers to the "offenses" of family desertion or nonsupport of wife or children.”
State v. Williams, 484 P.2d 1167 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “In the instant case, defendants contend that the only duty to provide medical care for the infant child is the statutory duty set forth in RCW 26.20.030; that the court having concluded that the defendants were not guilty of “willful .”
State v. Klein, 484 P.2d 455 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “…(Revised Code of Montana, vol. 8, § 94-304-11020 (1969)), while in Washington such maximum penalty is 20 years. (RCW 26.20.030)”
State v. Aver, 745 P.2d 479 (Wash. 1987). “Citing former RCW 26.20.030(1) (b). We held this statute to be unconstitutionally vague because the "without lawful excuse" element had not been sufficiently clarified by other statute or case authority.”
State v. Richmond, 683 P.2d 1093 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 26.20.030 has contained the phrase, "without lawful excuse," since its enactment in 1913.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.20.030(1)(b): 6 cases
State v. Richmond, 683 P.2d 1093 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 26.20.030 has contained the phrase, "without lawful excuse," since its enactment in 1913.”
Klossner v. San Juan Cnty., 605 P.2d 330 (Wash. 1980).
Harmon v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Serv., 951 P.2d 770 (Wash. 1998).
State v. Aver, 745 P.2d 479 (Wash. 1987). “Citing former RCW 26.20.030(1) (b). We held this statute to be unconstitutionally vague because the "without lawful excuse" element had not been sufficiently clarified by other statute or case authority.”
State v. Russell, 442 P.2d 988 (Wash. 1968). “RCW 26.20.030 provides in pertinent part: (1) Every person who: .”
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.20.030(2): 1 case
State v. Wallace, 651 P.2d 201 (Wash. 1982).
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.20.030(b): 1 case
State v. Parmenter, 444 P.2d 680 (Wash. 1968).
Wash. Rev. Code § 26.20.030(l)(b): 4 cases
Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 389 P.3d 731 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “" Former RCW 26.20.030(l)(b) (1973). Bauer noted that most commonly, "wilful" was used "to denote an act which is voluntary or knowing.”
Harmon v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 134 Wash. 2d 523 (1998).
State v. Richmond, 683 P.2d 1093 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 26.20.030 has contained the phrase, "without lawful excuse," since its enactment in 1913.”
State v. Harrington, 333 P.3d 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
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.