Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.33
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.33.120 (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) Except in the case of an Indian child and his or her parent, the parent-child relationship of a parent may be terminated upon a showing by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the relationship and that the parent has failed to perform parental duties under circumstances showing a substantial lack of regard for his or her parental obligations and is withholding consent to adoption contrary to the best interest of the child.
(2) Except in the case of an Indian child and his or her *alleged father, the parent-child relationship of an *alleged father who appears and claims paternity may be terminated upon a showing by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the relationship and that:
(a) The *alleged father has failed to perform parental duties under circumstances showing a substantial lack of regard for his parental obligations and is withholding consent to adoption contrary to the best interest of the child; or
(b) He is not the father.
(3) The parent-child relationship of a parent or an *alleged father may be terminated if the parent or *alleged father fails to appear after being notified of the hearing in the manner prescribed by RCW 26.33.310.
(4) The parent-child relationship of an Indian child and his or her parent or *alleged father where paternity has been claimed or established, may be terminated only pursuant to the standards set forth in 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1912(f).
[ 1987 c 170 s 6; 1984 c 155 s 12.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 26.33.020 was amended by 2019 c 46 s 5034, changing the definition of "alleged father" to "alleged genetic parent."
Severability—1987 c 170: See note following RCW 13.04.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: M.D.T. v. C.A.M., 381 P.3d 1210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
M.D.T. v. C.A.M., 381 P.3d 1210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 24× “First, we hold that the trial court erred in failing to make the required due process finding that MT was unfit to parent, which can be satisfied by compliance with the requirements of RCW 26.33.120(1). Specifically, the trial court failed to address under RCW 26.”
Matter of Adoption of Infant Mcgee, 937 P.2d 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 7× “RCW 26.33.120 is the statute governing termination of parental rights in the context of a petition for adoption.”
In Re Est. of Fleming, 21 P.3d 281 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “See RCW 26.33.120. Washington's adoption statute includes provisions for the filing of petitions for relinquishment of parental rights (RCW 26.”
In Re Parentage of LB, 89 P.3d 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “3d 887 (2001); RCW 26.33.120(1); RCW 26.33.160(1)(b). Thus, she argues that recognition of de facto parentage would create a pseudo adoption without these constitutional constraints.”
In Re the Infant Child Skinner, 982 P.2d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.33.120. The inquiry focuses on whether the biological parent, by his or her behavior, has forfeited all rights in the child and whether terminating parental rights would be in the child’s best interests.”
Carvin v. Britain, 121 Wash. App. 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “at 191 ; RCW 26.33.120(1); RCW 26.33.160(1)(b). Thus, she argues that recognition of de facto parentage would create a “pseudo adoption” without these constitutional constraints.”
In re the Adoption of Infant McGee, 86 Wash. App. 471 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “” 7 Parental unfitness is also the ultimate inquiry when the State seeks to terminate parental rights under the dependency statutes.”
State v. N.P., 181 Wash. App. 301 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “The parent-child relationship may be terminated upon a showing by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the relationship and that the parent has failed to perform parental duties under circumstances showing a substantial…”
Psaty v. Psaty, 789 P.2d 96 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 7× “Psaty appealed alleging that RCW 26.33.120 permitting stepparent adoption through termination of the natural parent's parental rights, without that parent's consent, violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process and equal protection, and that the trial court's decision…”
In Re: K.M.T. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 25× “47697-5-II of RCW 26.33.120(1). Specifically, the trial court failed to address under RCW 26.”
Marzan v. Kovacs, 143 Wash. 2d 412 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “See RCW 26.33.120. Washington’s adoption statute includes provisions for the filing of petitions for relinquishment of parental rights (RCW 26.”
In re the Adoption of: J.L.-R. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 13× “Because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and conclusions supporting the termination of appellant José Leon-Rivera’s paternal rights and because precedent upholds the constitutionality of RCW 26.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.33.120(1) — 27 cases
M.D.T. v. C.A.M., 381 P.3d 1210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “First, we hold that the trial court erred in failing to make the required due process finding that MT was unfit to parent, which can be satisfied by compliance with the requirements of RCW 26.33.120(1). Specifically, the trial court failed to address under RCW 26.”
In Re Parentage of LB, 89 P.3d 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “3d 887 (2001); RCW 26.33.120(1); RCW 26.33.160(1)(b). Thus, she argues that recognition of de facto parentage would create a pseudo adoption without these constitutional constraints.”
Carvin v. Britain, 121 Wash. App. 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “at 191 ; RCW 26.33.120(1); RCW 26.33.160(1)(b). Thus, she argues that recognition of de facto parentage would create a “pseudo adoption” without these constitutional constraints.”
State v. N.P., 181 Wash. App. 301 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “The parent-child relationship may be terminated upon a showing by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the relationship and that the parent has failed to perform parental duties under circumstances showing a substantial…”
Matter of Adoption of Infant Mcgee, 937 P.2d 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 26.33.120 is the statute governing termination of parental rights in the context of a petition for adoption.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.33.120(2) — 1 case
In Re the Interest of: B.R. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.33.120(2)(a) — 1 case
In Re the Interest of: B.R. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.33.120(3) — 1 case
In re the Adoption of: Infant G.-C. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
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.