Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.050
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in RCW 26.44.030(12), upon the receipt of a report alleging that abuse or neglect has occurred, the law enforcement agency or the department must investigate and provide the protective services section with a report in accordance with chapter 74.13 RCW, and where necessary to refer such report to the court.
(2) A law enforcement officer may take, or cause to be taken, a child into custody without a court order if there is probable cause to believe that taking the child into custody is necessary to prevent imminent physical harm to the child due to child abuse or neglect, including that which results from sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, a high-potency synthetic opioid, or a pattern of severe neglect, and the child would be seriously injured or could not be taken into custody if it were necessary to first obtain a court order pursuant to RCW 13.34.050. The law enforcement agency or the department investigating such a report is hereby authorized to photograph such a child for the purpose of providing documentary evidence of the physical condition of the child.
[ 2024 c 328 s 105; 2021 c 211 s 5; 2020 c 71 s 1; 2017 3rd sp.s. c 6 s 324; 2012 c 259 s 5; 1999 c 176 s 33. Prior: 1987 c 450 s 7; 1987 c 206 s 5; 1984 c 97 s 5; 1981 c 164 s 3; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 51; 1977 ex.s. c 80 s 28; 1975 1st ex.s. c 217 s 5; 1971 ex.s. c 302 s 15; 1969 ex.s. c 35 s 5; 1965 c 13 s 5.]
Notes:
Findings—Intent—2024 c 328: See note following RCW 13.34.050.
Effective date—Short title—Finding—Intent—2021 c 211: See notes following RCW 13.34.040.
Effective date—2017 3rd sp.s. c 6 ss 102, 104-115, 201-227, 301-337, 401-419, 501-513, 801-803, and 805-822: See note following RCW 43.216.025.
Conflict with federal requirements—2017 3rd sp.s. c 6: See RCW 43.216.908.
Effective date—2012 c 259 ss 1 and 3-10: See note following RCW 26.44.020.
Findings—Purpose—Severability—Conflict with federal requirements—1999 c 176: See notes following RCW 74.34.005.
Effective dates—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 291: See notes following RCW 13.04.005.
Purpose—Intent—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 80: See notes following RCW 4.16.190.
Severability—1971 ex.s. c 302: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 119
cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Wrigley v. State
Wrigley v. State (2020)
“^ Wrigley brought suit against the State and DSHS and asserted numerous claims: negligent investigation based on former RCW 26.44.050, wrongful death, outrage, loss of consortium, negligent misrepresentation, survival action, negligent training/supervision, and publication of…”
Fearghal Mccarthy, V Clark County (2016)
“Their primary claim was that all three defendants negligently conducted investigations required under RCW 26.44.050 of Patricia’s report that Fearghal had struck CCM, which resulted in Fearghal and the children being separated for an extended period.”
Ducote v. Department of Social & Health Services (2009)
“¶2 Ducote asks this court to hold that stepparents have standing to bring a claim of negligent investigation against the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) pursuant to RCW 26.44.050. We decline. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 Ducote married Dixie Ducote in…”
Tyner v. Department of Social & Health Services (2000)
“Tyner, however, contends that an implied statutory cause of action in favor of a parent, even one *77 suspected of child abuse, should be derived from RCW 26.44.050. 3 It is clear that the State has a statutorily mandated duty to investigate child abuse allegations brought to…”
M.W. v. Department of Social & Health Services (2003)
“The Court of Appeals determined, however, that “[implicit in the duty to investigate under RCW 26.44.050[ 3 ] is the duty to investigate reasonably,” which includes following proper DSHS procedures.”
Roberson v. Perez (2005)
“After the dismissal of the dependency petition, the father sued for negligent investigation under RCW 26.44.050. Id. at 75-56 . The parties agreed that RCW 26.”
Roberson v. Perez (2005)
“After the dismissal of the dependency petition, the father sued for negligent investigation under RCW 26.44.050. Id. at 75-56, 1 P.3d 1148 .”
H.B.H. v. State (2018)
“040(1). The court may then order "a law enforcement officer, probation counselor, or child protective services official" to take the child into state custody if it finds reasonable grounds to believe the child is dependent and that the child's "health, safety, and welfare will…”
H.B.H. v. State (2016)
“3d 954 (2003), the court examined whether RCW 26.44.050 imposes a duty on DSHS to protect children from harm by DSHS workers while investigating potential abuse.”
Albertson v. Washington ex rel. Department of Social & Health Services (2015)
“¶36 ARB brought his cause of action against DSHS under former RCW 26.44.050, 9 which provides that when DSHS receives a report of possible child abuse or neglect it “must investigate” that report and “where necessary .”
Lewis v. Whatcom County (2006)
“But RCW 26.44.050 creates a duty to all children who may be abused or neglected, regardless of the relationship between the child and his or her alleged abuser.”
Jessica L. Wrigley, V State Of Wa Dshs, Etal (2018)
“a duty of care under (1) former RCW 26.44.050 (2012), (2) the shelter care order, and (3) the special relationship doctrine.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.050(1) — 3 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.