Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.44

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.056

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) An administrator of a hospital or similar institution or any physician, licensed pursuant to chapters 18.71 or 18.57 RCW, may detain a child without consent of a person legally responsible for the child whether or not medical treatment is required, if there is probable cause to believe that detaining the child 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 under RCW 13.34.050: PROVIDED, That such administrator or physician shall notify or cause to be notified the appropriate law enforcement agency or child protective services pursuant to RCW 26.44.040. Such notification shall be made as soon as possible and in no case longer than 72 hours. Such temporary protective custody by an administrator or doctor shall not be deemed an arrest. Child protective services may detain the child until the court assumes custody, but in no case longer than 72 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
(2) A child protective services employee, an administrator, doctor, or law enforcement officer shall not be held liable in any civil action for the decision for taking the child into custody, if done in good faith under this section.
[ 2024 c 328 s 106; 2021 c 211 s 4; 1983 c 246 s 3; 1982 c 129 s 8; 1975 1st ex.s. c 217 s 9.]

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.
Severability—1982 c 129: See note following RCW 9A.04.080.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: Babcock v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Babcock v. State (1991) wash · cites it 11× “RCW 26.44.056 allows DSHS to detain a child until a court assumes custody for up to 72 hours if it has "reasonable cause to believe" that leaving the child in his or her residence "would present an imminent danger to that child's safety".”
Taggart v. State (1992) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 26.44.056(3). It would have been anomalous for us to grant DSHS caseworkers an absolute immunity for foster care placement decisions in Babcock , while those workers only have a qualified immunity for removing children from abusive situations.”
Savage v. State (1995) wash · cites it 2× “What the court appears to have overlooked is that in Babcock the provision reaffirming the abolition of sovereign immunity was included because another provision in the same statute, RCW 26.44.056(3), immunized caseworkers from liability for the good faith placement of children…”
Miles v. CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES DEPT. (2000) washctapp · cites it 3× “taking a child into custody pursuant to RCW 26.44.056 shall not be subject to criminal or civil liability for such taking into custody," and RCW 26.”
Miles v. Child Protective Services Department (2000) washctapp · cites it 3× “taking a child into custody pursuant to RCW 26.44.056 shall not be subject to criminal or civil liability for such taking into custody,” and RCW 26.”
Waller v. State (1992) washctapp · cites it 2× “Noting that the Legislature has extended only a qualified immunity under RCW 26.44.056 to caseworkers who must remove children from their homes in emergency situations, 3 *329 the Babcock II court stated that where the Legislature has not seen fit to grant absolute immunity, it…”
In Re the Detention Swanson (1990) wash “Similarly, RCW 26.44.056 allows Child Protective Services to take a child into protective detention or custody for up to 72 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.”
Savage v. State (1994) washctapp · cites it 2× “The Legislature had granted qualified immunity to caseworkers who took children into 72-hour protective custody under RCW 26.44.056. At issue in Babcock was whether that qualified immunity should be extended to all caseworkers beyond the situations delineated in RCW 26.”
Spurrell v. Block (1985) washctapp “RCW 26.44.056(1). The Spurrell children were released some 30 hours after their removal from their family home.”
Rodriguez v. Perez (2000) washctapp “030(10)), and must take the child into custody if there is reason to believe a child’s welfare is in danger (RCW 26.44.056(2)).”
Albertson v. Washington ex rel. Department of Social & Health Services (2015) washctapp “Under RCW 26.44.056, a hospital may hold a child provided that within 72 hours CPS makes contact with the child and determines whether or not it is safe for the child to return home.”
M.W. v. Department of Social & Health Services (2002) washctapp “We held that a rational trier of fact could not find factual causation, and that the caseworker was qualifiedly immune under RCW 26.44.056(3). These 12 cases can be grouped into three categories.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.056(1) — 3 cases
Spurrell v. Block (1985) washctapp “RCW 26.44.056(1). The Spurrell children were released some 30 hours after their removal from their family home.”
Miles v. CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES DEPT. (2000) washctapp “taking a child into custody pursuant to RCW 26.44.056 shall not be subject to criminal or civil liability for such taking into custody," and RCW 26.”
Miles v. Child Protective Services Department (2000) washctapp “taking a child into custody pursuant to RCW 26.44.056 shall not be subject to criminal or civil liability for such taking into custody,” and RCW 26.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.056(2) — 1 case
Rodriguez v. Perez (2000) washctapp “030(10)), and must take the child into custody if there is reason to believe a child’s welfare is in danger (RCW 26.44.056(2)).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.056(3) — 8 cases
Babcock v. State (1991) wash “RCW 26.44.056 allows DSHS to detain a child until a court assumes custody for up to 72 hours if it has "reasonable cause to believe" that leaving the child in his or her residence "would present an imminent danger to that child's safety".”
Taggart v. State (1992) wash “RCW 26.44.056(3). It would have been anomalous for us to grant DSHS caseworkers an absolute immunity for foster care placement decisions in Babcock , while those workers only have a qualified immunity for removing children from abusive situations.”
Savage v. State (1995) wash “What the court appears to have overlooked is that in Babcock the provision reaffirming the abolition of sovereign immunity was included because another provision in the same statute, RCW 26.44.056(3), immunized caseworkers from liability for the good faith placement of children…”
Waller v. State (1992) washctapp “Noting that the Legislature has extended only a qualified immunity under RCW 26.44.056 to caseworkers who must remove children from their homes in emergency situations, 3 *329 the Babcock II court stated that where the Legislature has not seen fit to grant absolute immunity, it…”
Miles v. CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES DEPT. (2000) washctapp “taking a child into custody pursuant to RCW 26.44.056 shall not be subject to criminal or civil liability for such taking into custody," and RCW 26.”
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.