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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.20.080 (2025)

Proof of wilfulness—Application of penalty provisions

✓ 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
Proof of the nonsupport of a spouse or domestic partner or of a child or children, or the omission to furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance for a spouse or domestic partner, or for a child or children, is prima facie evidence that the nonsupport or omission to furnish food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance is wilful. The provisions of RCW 26.20.030 and 26.20.035 are applicable regardless of the marital or domestic partnership status of the person who has a child dependent upon him or her, and regardless of the nonexistence of any decree requiring payment of support or maintenance.
[ 2008 c 6 s 1042; 1984 c 260 s 28; 1973 1st ex.s. c 154 s 36; 1913 c 28 s 3; RRS s 6910. Formerly RCW 26.20.080 and 26.20.090.]

Notes:

Part headings not law—Severability—2008 c 6: See RCW 26.60.900 and 26.60.901.
Severability—1973 1st ex.s. c 154: See note following RCW 2.12.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1966–1984 · 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 15× “080 and simultaneously confused the element of "willfulness" by *246 importing into RCW 26.”
State v. Bauer, 595 P.2d 544 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 10× “We granted appellant's petition for direct review to examine the validity of the presumption of wilfulness created by RCW 26.20.080, and the adequacy of the trial court's instructions on this presumption.”
State v. Russell, 442 P.2d 988 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 11× “Supplementary to this definition of the crime of nonsupport, RCW 26.20.080 provides: Proof of the ... omission to furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance for a child or children, ward or wards, is prima facie evidence that such abandonment or nonsupport,…”
State v. Birdwell, 492 P.2d 249 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “Finister, supra at 46, where the court explained its reliance on legislative knowledge to provide the connection between failure of support and willfulness: Legislative interest in providing for support of children by their parents, rather than by the public, is great when many…”
State v. Finister, 486 P.2d 114 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 3× “On appeal he challenges the statutory rebuttable presumption found in RCW 26.20.080, i.e., that failure of support is willful under RCW 26.”
State v. Russell, 415 P.2d 503 (Wash. 1966). “RCW 26.20.080 provides that proof of desertion, nonsupport or omission to furnish necessities is prima facie evidence that such was willful.”
State v. Williams, 484 P.2d 1167 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). “” It was further pointed out that, by reason of RCW 26.20.080, the state *914 meets its burden of proving willfulness and absence of lawful excuse on a prima facie basis when the evidence, directly or circumstantially, reveals a failure on the part of a physically or…”
State v. Godines, 510 P.2d 835 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). “Proof that the accused was physically and vocationally unable to work may be introduced to rebut the presumption. Here the presumption was not rebutted.”
State v. Ozanne, 452 P.2d 745 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.20.080 Proof of willfulness—Application of penalty provisions.”
State v. McCarty, 456 P.2d 350 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 3× “Under RCW 26.20.080, proof of the omission to furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance for a child is prima facie evidence that such omission is willful.”
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.