Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.44
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.010 (2026)

Declaration of purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The Washington state legislature finds and declares: The bond between a child and his or her parent, custodian, or guardian is of paramount importance, and any intervention into the life of a child is also an intervention into the life of the parent, custodian, or guardian; however, instances of nonaccidental injury, neglect, death, sexual abuse and cruelty to children by their parents, custodians or guardians have occurred, and in the instance where a child is deprived of his or her right to conditions of minimal nurture, health, and safety, the state is justified in emergency intervention based upon verified information; and therefore the Washington state legislature hereby provides for the reporting of such cases to the appropriate public authorities. It is the intent of the legislature that, as a result of such reports, protective services shall be made available in an effort to prevent further abuses, and to safeguard the general welfare of such children. When the child's physical or mental health is jeopardized, or the safety of the child conflicts with the legal rights of a parent, custodian, or guardian, the health and safety interests of the child should prevail. When determining whether a child and a parent, custodian, or guardian should be separated during or immediately following an investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect, the safety of the child shall be the department's paramount concern. Reports of child abuse and neglect shall be maintained and disseminated with strictest regard for the privacy of the subjects of such reports and so as to safeguard against arbitrary, malicious or erroneous information or actions. This chapter shall not be construed to authorize interference with child-raising practices, including reasonable parental discipline, which are not proved to be injurious to the child's health, welfare and safety.
[ 2012 c 259 s 12; 1999 c 176 s 27; 1987 c 206 s 1; 1984 c 97 s 1; 1977 ex.s. c 80 s 24; 1975 1st ex.s. c 217 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 35 s 1; 1965 c 13 s 1.]

Notes:

Findings—Purpose—Severability—Conflict with federal requirements—1999 c 176: See notes following RCW 74.34.005.
Purpose—Intent—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 80: See notes following RCW 4.16.190.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Ducote v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 222 P.3d 785 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ducote v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 222 P.3d 785 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 10× “The State argued that a claim for negligent investigation is limited to children, parents, guardians, and custodians.”
M.W. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 70 P.3d 954 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 6× “tion into the life of the parent, custodian, or guardian; however, instances of nonaccidental injury, neglect, death, sexual abuse and cruelty to children by their parents, custodians or guardians have occurred, and in the instance where a child is deprived of his or her right…”
Tyner v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 1 P.3d 1148 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 4× “But RCW 26.44.010, the declaration of purpose section, makes it clear that a parent’s interests were contemplated by the Legislature.”
Angela Evans v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 380 P.3d 553 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.44.010 (emphasis added). This portion of the declaration of purpose demonstrates that the legislature considered parents individually and the family unit as a whole when implementing the mandatory reporting statute.”
Wrigley v. State, 455 P.3d 1138 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 5× “Former RCW 26.44.010 (1999). Here, the statute evinces that reports are backward looking.”
Blackwell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 127 P.3d 752 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “7 ¶8 In RCW 26.44.010, the legislature expressed an “ ‘intent to identify [and protect] a particular and circumscribed class of persons.”
Yonker v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 930 P.2d 958 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “RCW 26.44.010. Therefore, the Legislature provided for DSHS to receive reports of such incidents and required that "protective services shall be made available in an effort to prevent further abuses, and to safeguard the general welfare of such children[.”
State v. James-Buhl, 415 P.3d 234 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “2 ¶ 9 The legislature's declaration of purpose explains the rationale behind the mandatory reporting law. The legislature declared that the "bond between a child and his or her parent, custodian, or guardian is of paramount importance," but the State is justified in emergency…”
Albertson v. Washington ex rel. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 361 P.3d 808 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “3d 1148 (2000); RCW 26.44.010. 10 ¶37 Washington law does not recognize a general tort claim for negligent investigation.”
Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wash. 2d 33 (Wash. 2005). “010 sets forth the purposes of the chapter and provides in relevant part: The Washington state legislature finds and declares: The bond between a child and his or her parent, custodian, or guardian is of paramount importance, and any intervention into the life of a child is also…”
Roberson v. Perez, 123 P.3d 844 (Wash. 2005). “010 sets forth the purposes of the chapter and provides in relevant part: The Washington state legislature finds and declares: The bond between a child and his or her parent, custodian, or guardian is of paramount importance, and any intervention into the life of a child is also…”
Kim v. Lakeside Adult Fam. Home, 374 P.3d 121 (Wash. 2016). “020 (1969) (incorporating the protection of mentally disabled adults into the statute); former RCW 26.44.010 (1977) (incorporating the protection of adult developmentally disabled persons into the declaration of purpose).”
Show all 81 citing cases →
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.