Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.053 (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) In any judicial proceeding under this chapter or chapter 13.34 RCW in which it is alleged that a child has been subjected to child abuse or neglect, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the child as provided in chapter 13.34 RCW. The requirement of a guardian ad litem may be deemed satisfied if the child is represented by counsel in the proceedings.

(2) At any time prior to or during a hearing in such a case, the court may, on its own motion, or the motion of the guardian ad litem, or other parties, order the examination by a physician, psychologist, or psychiatrist, of any parent or child or other person having custody of the child at the time of the alleged child abuse or neglect, if the court finds such an examination is necessary to the proper determination of the case. The hearing may be continued pending the completion of such examination. The physician, psychologist, or psychiatrist conducting such an examination may be required to testify concerning the results of such examination and may be asked to give his or her opinion as to whether the protection of the child requires that he or she not be returned to the custody of his or her parents or other persons having custody of him or her at the time of the alleged child abuse or neglect. Persons so testifying shall be subject to cross-examination as are other witnesses. No information given at any such examination of the parent or any other person having custody of the child may be used against such person in any subsequent criminal proceedings against such person or custodian concerning the alleged abuse or neglect of the child.

(3) A parent or other person having legal custody of a child alleged to be abused or neglected shall be a party to any proceeding that may impair or impede such person's interest in and custody or control of the child.

[ 1997 c 386 s 28; 1996 c 249 s 16; 1994 c 110 s 1; 1993 c 241 s 4. Prior: 1987 c 524 s 11; 1987 c 206 s 7; 1975 1st ex.s. c 217 s 8.]

Notes:

Application—Effective date—1997 c 386: See notes following RCW 13.50.010.

Intent—1996 c 249: See note following RCW 2.56.030.

Conflict with federal requirements—1993 c 241: See note following RCW 13.34.030.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: In re Dependency of A.M.-S., 474 P.3d 560 (Wash. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Dependency of A.M.-S., 474 P.3d 560 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 12× “In its ruling, the court specifically ordered, Pursuant to RCW 26.44.053, no information given at any examinations of the parents (completed in association with this dependency action) may be used against the parents in subsequent criminal proceedings against the parents…”

Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Willis, 126 Wash. App. 786 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “¶17 The Department also contends the parents’ Fifth Amendment rights were never threatened because the immunity statute, RCW 26.44.053(2), fully protects those rights.”

In re the Det. of Kistenmacher, 178 P.3d 949 (Wash. 2008). “was limited to whether there was a Fifth Amendment right to counsel at a psychological evaluation and whether that right was adequately protected with the scheme of RCW 26.44.053. J.R.U.-S., 126 Wn. App. at 798-801 .”

In re the Welfare of Angelo H., 124 Wash. App. 578 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” RCW 26.44.053(2); see also In re Interest of J.”

In Re Dependency of JRU-S., 110 P.3d 773 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 17 The Department also contends the parents' Fifth Amendment rights were never threatened because the immunity statute, RCW 26.44.053(2), fully protects those rights.”

In Re Dependency Of : A.m-s., Dob: 12/17/08, Sergio Michel-garcia, Pet v. State Of Wa, Resp, 454 P.3d 117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “The court ordered: Pursuant to RCW 26.44.053, no information given at any examinations of the parents (completed in association with this dependency action) may be used against the parents in subsequent criminal proceedings against the parents concerning the alleged abuse or…”

In Re Welfare of Angelo H., 102 P.3d 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “" RCW 26.44.053(2); see also In the Interest of J.”

Zayas v. Enslee (W.D. Wash. 2025). “She alleges that Defendant “knows 9 or reasonably should have known that [RCW 26.44.053(3)] provides Plaintiff[’]s rights are being 10 violated actively by judges in King County Superior Court and does not report these crimes to 11 the proper authorities.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.053(2) — 6 cases

In re Dependency of A.M.-S., 474 P.3d 560 (Wash. 2020). “In its ruling, the court specifically ordered, Pursuant to RCW 26.44.053, no information given at any examinations of the parents (completed in association with this dependency action) may be used against the parents in subsequent criminal proceedings against the parents…”

Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Willis, 126 Wash. App. 786 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶17 The Department also contends the parents’ Fifth Amendment rights were never threatened because the immunity statute, RCW 26.44.053(2), fully protects those rights.”

In re the Welfare of Angelo H., 124 Wash. App. 578 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “” RCW 26.44.053(2); see also In re Interest of J.”

In Re Dependency Of : A.m-s., Dob: 12/17/08, Sergio Michel-garcia, Pet v. State Of Wa, Resp, 454 P.3d 117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The court ordered: Pursuant to RCW 26.44.053, no information given at any examinations of the parents (completed in association with this dependency action) may be used against the parents in subsequent criminal proceedings against the parents concerning the alleged abuse or…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.053(3) — 1 case

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.