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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.031 (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) To protect the privacy in reporting and the maintenance of reports of nonaccidental injury, neglect, death, sexual abuse, and cruelty to children by their parents, and to safeguard against arbitrary, malicious, or erroneous information or actions, the department shall not disclose or maintain information related to reports of child abuse or neglect except as provided in this section or as otherwise required by state and federal law.
(2) The department shall destroy all of its records concerning:
(a) A screened-out report, within three years from the receipt of the report; and
(b) An unfounded or inconclusive report, within six years of completion of the investigation, unless a prior or subsequent founded report has been received regarding the child who is the subject of the report, a sibling or half-sibling of the child, or a parent, guardian, or legal custodian of the child, before the records are destroyed.
(3) The department may keep records concerning founded reports of child abuse or neglect as the department determines by rule.
(4) No unfounded, screened-out, or inconclusive report or information about a family's participation or nonparticipation in the family assessment response may be disclosed to a child-placing agency, private adoption agency, or any other provider licensed under chapter 74.15 RCW without the consent of the individual who is the subject of the report or family assessment, unless:
(a) The individual seeks to become a licensed foster parent or adoptive parent; or
(b) The individual is the parent or legal custodian of a child being served by one of the agencies referenced in this subsection.
(5)(a) If the department fails to comply with this section, an individual who is the subject of a report may institute proceedings for injunctive or other appropriate relief for enforcement of the requirement to purge information. These proceedings may be instituted in the superior court for the county in which the person resides or, if the person is not then a resident of this state, in the superior court for Thurston county.
(b) If the department fails to comply with subsection (4) of this section and an individual who is the subject of the report or family assessment response information is harmed by the disclosure of information, in addition to the relief provided in (a) of this subsection, the court may award a penalty of up to one thousand dollars and reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs to the petitioner.
(c) A proceeding under this subsection does not preclude other methods of enforcement provided for by law.
(6) Nothing in this section shall prevent the department from retaining general, nonidentifying information which is required for state and federal reporting and management purposes.
[ 2012 c 259 s 4; 2007 c 220 s 3; 1997 c 282 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—2012 c 259 ss 1 and 3-10: See note following RCW 26.44.020.
Effective date—Implementation—2007 c 220 ss 1-3: See notes following RCW 26.44.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2019–2026 · leading case: Russell Carter, V. Dcyf (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Russell Carter, V. Dcyf (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 42× “During the trial, Megan alleged that the Department “had distributed medical and other case records to its witnesses in violation of RCW 26.44.031.” CP at 129. The statute requires the Department to “destroy all .”
Brooke Howell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 436 P.3d 368 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” RCW 26.44.031(3). If a finding becomes final either after an administrative hearing or by default (because an accused person fails to appeal a notice of the finding), the accused’s name is placed in a database of persons with administrative findings of abuse, neglect or other…”
Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “832(2) gives DSHS the discretion to determine who should be deleted from any child abuse “state registry” and that RCW 26.44.031 gives DSHS the discretion to determine how long a person will remain listed.”
Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “832(2) gives DSHS the discretion to determine who should be deleted from any child abuse “state registry” and that RCW 26.44.031 gives DSHS the discretion to determine how long a person will remain listed.”
Northstar Case Mgmt. Obo Raymond Bell, V. State Of Wa Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3× “Department of Social & Health Services, where the court held that RCW 26.44.031 did not support an implied cause of action against the Department for failure to destroy records of prior investigations of child abuse or neglect.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.031(1) — 1 case
Russell Carter, V. Dcyf (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “During the trial, Megan alleged that the Department “had distributed medical and other case records to its witnesses in violation of RCW 26.44.031.” CP at 129. The statute requires the Department to “destroy all .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.031(2) — 3 cases
Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “832(2) gives DSHS the discretion to determine who should be deleted from any child abuse “state registry” and that RCW 26.44.031 gives DSHS the discretion to determine how long a person will remain listed.”
Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “832(2) gives DSHS the discretion to determine who should be deleted from any child abuse “state registry” and that RCW 26.44.031 gives DSHS the discretion to determine how long a person will remain listed.”
Russell Carter, V. Dcyf (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “During the trial, Megan alleged that the Department “had distributed medical and other case records to its witnesses in violation of RCW 26.44.031.” CP at 129. The statute requires the Department to “destroy all .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.031(2)(a) — 1 case
Russell Carter, V. Dcyf (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “During the trial, Megan alleged that the Department “had distributed medical and other case records to its witnesses in violation of RCW 26.44.031.” CP at 129. The statute requires the Department to “destroy all .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.031(2)(b) — 1 case
Russell Carter, V. Dcyf (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “During the trial, Megan alleged that the Department “had distributed medical and other case records to its witnesses in violation of RCW 26.44.031.” CP at 129. The statute requires the Department to “destroy all .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.031(3) — 2 cases
Brooke Howell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 436 P.3d 368 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “” RCW 26.44.031(3). If a finding becomes final either after an administrative hearing or by default (because an accused person fails to appeal a notice of the finding), the accused’s name is placed in a database of persons with administrative findings of abuse, neglect or other…”
Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “832(2) gives DSHS the discretion to determine who should be deleted from any child abuse “state registry” and that RCW 26.44.031 gives DSHS the discretion to determine how long a person will remain listed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.031(5)(a) — 2 cases
Russell Carter, V. Dcyf (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “During the trial, Megan alleged that the Department “had distributed medical and other case records to its witnesses in violation of RCW 26.44.031.” CP at 129. The statute requires the Department to “destroy all .”
Northstar Case Mgmt. Obo Raymond Bell, V. State Of Wa Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “Department of Social & Health Services, where the court held that RCW 26.44.031 did not support an implied cause of action against the Department for failure to destroy records of prior investigations of child abuse or neglect.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.031(5)(b) — 2 cases
Russell Carter, V. Dcyf (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “During the trial, Megan alleged that the Department “had distributed medical and other case records to its witnesses in violation of RCW 26.44.031.” CP at 129. The statute requires the Department to “destroy all .”
Northstar Case Mgmt. Obo Raymond Bell, V. State Of Wa Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “Department of Social & Health Services, where the court held that RCW 26.44.031 did not support an implied cause of action against the Department for failure to destroy records of prior investigations of child abuse or neglect.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.031(5)(c) — 1 case
Russell Carter, V. Dcyf (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “During the trial, Megan alleged that the Department “had distributed medical and other case records to its witnesses in violation of RCW 26.44.031.” CP at 129. The statute requires the Department to “destroy all .”
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.