Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.44

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.100

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The legislature finds parents and children often are not aware of their due process rights when agencies are investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect. The legislature reaffirms that all citizens, including parents, shall be afforded due process, that protection of children remains the priority of the legislature, and that this protection includes protecting the family unit from unnecessary disruption. To facilitate this goal, the legislature wishes to ensure that parents and children be advised in writing and orally, if feasible, of their basic rights and other specific information as set forth in this chapter, provided that nothing contained in this chapter shall cause any delay in protective custody action.
(2) The department shall notify the parent, guardian, or legal custodian of a child of any allegations of child abuse or neglect made against such person at the initial point of contact with such person, in a manner consistent with the laws maintaining the confidentiality of the persons making the complaints or allegations. Investigations of child abuse and neglect should be conducted in a manner that will not jeopardize the safety or protection of the child or the integrity of the investigation process.
Whenever the department completes an investigation of a child abuse or neglect report under this chapter, the department shall notify the subject of the report of the department's investigative findings. The notice shall also advise the subject of the report that:
(a) A written response to the report may be provided to the department and that such response will be filed in the record following receipt by the department;
(b) Information in the department's record may be considered in subsequent investigations or proceedings related to child protection or child custody;
(c) Founded reports of child abuse and neglect may be considered in determining whether the person is disqualified from being licensed to provide child care, employed by a licensed child care agency, or authorized by the department to care for children; and
(d) A subject named in a founded report of child abuse or neglect has the right to seek review of the finding as provided in this chapter.
(3) The founded finding notification required by this section shall be made by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the person's last known address.
(4) The unfounded finding notification required by this section must be made by regular mail to the person's last known address or by email.
(5) The duty of notification created by this section is subject to the ability of the department to ascertain the location of the person to be notified. The department shall exercise reasonable, good faith efforts to ascertain the location of persons entitled to notification under this section.
(6) The department shall provide training to all department personnel who conduct investigations under this section that shall include, but is not limited to, training regarding the legal duties of the department from the initial time of contact during investigation through treatment in order to protect children and families.
[ 2017 c 269 s 2; 2005 c 512 s 1; 1998 c 314 s 8; 1997 c 282 s 2; 1993 c 412 s 17; 1985 c 183 s 1.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—2005 c 512: "The legislature finds that whenever possible, children should remain in the home of their parents. It is only when the safety of the child is in jeopardy that the child should be removed from the home.
It is the intent of the legislature that the department of social and health services be permitted to intervene in cases of chronic neglect where the health, welfare, or safety of the child is at risk. One incident of neglect may not rise to the level requiring state intervention; however, a pattern of neglect has been shown to cause damage to the health and well-being of the child subject to the neglect.
It is the intent of the legislature that, when chronic neglect has been found to exist in a family, the legal system reinforce the need for the parent's early engagement in services that will decrease the likelihood of future neglect. However, if the parents fail to comply with the offered necessary and available services, the state has the authority to intervene to protect the children who are at risk. If a parent fails to engage in available substance abuse or mental health services necessary to maintain the safety of a child or a parent fails to correct substance abuse deficiencies that jeopardize the safety of a child, the state has the authority to intervene to protect a child." [ 2005 c 512 s 2.]
Effective date—2005 c 512: "This act takes effect January 1, 2007." [ 2005 c 512 s 10.]
Short title—2005 c 512: "This act may be known and cited as the Justice and Raiden Act." [ 2005 c 512 s 11.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: Tyner v. Department of Social & Health Services
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tyner v. Department of Social & Health Services (2000) wash · cites it 7× “RCW 26.44.100 was substantially amended in 1997 to add the following language: (2) The department shall notify the alleged perpetrator of the allegations of child abuse and neglect at the earliest possible point in the investigation that will not jeopardize the safety and…”
Holly E. Snyder v. State of Washington, DSHS (2016) washctapp · cites it 11× “Snyder argued that constructive notice of the outcome of the review determination was insufficient, and that RCW 26.44.100 and RCW 26.44.125 require the alleged perpetrator to receive actual notice before the 30-day appeal period commences.”
Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Social & Health Services (2017) washctapp · cites it 2× “056(2); WAC 388-76-10120(3)-10180(1); RCW 26.44.100(2)(c), .125(2)(e); WAC 388-06A-0110.”
Pettis v. State (1999) washctapp · cites it 5× “of their basic rights[J RCW 26.44.100(1) (emphasis added). Thus, reading both subparts together, we do not see how the notification requirements could support a nonparental cause of action for negligent investigation.”
Ashley Brown v. Dept. of Social & Health Services, CPS (2015) washctapp · cites it 4× “RCW 26.44.100(2). The alleged perpetrator may ask for review of the finding by DSHS.”
Tyner v. DSHS, Child Protective Serv. (2000) wash · cites it 7× “RCW 26.44.100 was substantially amended in 1997 to add the following language: (2) The department shall notify the alleged perpetrator of the allegations of child *1162 abuse and neglect at the earliest possible point in the investigation that will not jeopardize the safety and…”
Rodriguez v. Perez (2000) washctapp “The legislature reaffirms that all citizens, including parents, shall be afforded due process, that protection of children remains the priority of the legislature, and that this protection includes protecting the family unit from unnecessary disruption.”
State Of Washington v. Tien Thuy Ho (2019) washctapp · cites it 5× “'s injuries. She does not raise this issue in her opening brief and only appears to be responding to the State's discussion of the issue.”
Alishio v. Department of Social & Health Services (2004) washctapp “…Wn.2d 1017 , 72 P.3d 761 (2003). Hisle, 113 Wn. App. at 412 . RCW 13.34.020. See RCW 13.34.020; RCW 26.44.010. See RCW 26.44.100(2)(c).”
Alishio v. DEPT. OF SOC. & HEALTH SERV. (2004) washctapp “…Hisle, 113 Wash.App. at 412 , 54 P.3d 687 . [13] RCW 13.34.020. [14] See RCW 13.34.020 and RCW 26.44.010. [15] See RCW 26.44.100(2)(c).”
Yevgeny Semenenko v. Dshs (2014) washctapp · cites it 7× “" Once notified that the investigation ended with a founded report of child abuse, the Semenenkos had 20 days to request a Department review: Within twenty calendar days after receiving written notice from the department under RCW 26.44.100 that a person is named as an alleged…”
Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (2019) washctapp · cites it 4× “Garcia appealed to Thurston County Superior Court,12 which concluded that DSHS had failed to comply with RCW 26.44.100 by not providing oral notice13 to Garcia of its adverse CPS finding when it was practicable to do so.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.100(1) — 3 cases
Pettis v. State (1999) washctapp “of their basic rights[J RCW 26.44.100(1) (emphasis added). Thus, reading both subparts together, we do not see how the notification requirements could support a nonparental cause of action for negligent investigation.”
Holly E. Snyder v. State of Washington, DSHS (2016) washctapp “Snyder argued that constructive notice of the outcome of the review determination was insufficient, and that RCW 26.44.100 and RCW 26.44.125 require the alleged perpetrator to receive actual notice before the 30-day appeal period commences.”
Tomas Rios-Garcia v. Washington Dep't Of Social & Health Servs. (2021) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.100(2) — 8 cases
Pettis v. State (1999) washctapp “of their basic rights[J RCW 26.44.100(1) (emphasis added). Thus, reading both subparts together, we do not see how the notification requirements could support a nonparental cause of action for negligent investigation.”
Holly E. Snyder v. State of Washington, DSHS (2016) washctapp “Snyder argued that constructive notice of the outcome of the review determination was insufficient, and that RCW 26.44.100 and RCW 26.44.125 require the alleged perpetrator to receive actual notice before the 30-day appeal period commences.”
Ashley Brown v. Dept. of Social & Health Services, CPS (2015) washctapp “RCW 26.44.100(2). The alleged perpetrator may ask for review of the finding by DSHS.”
State Of Washington v. Tien Thuy Ho (2019) washctapp “'s injuries. She does not raise this issue in her opening brief and only appears to be responding to the State's discussion of the issue.”
Richard Severson v. State Of Washington Dshs (2016) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.100(2)(c) — 6 cases
Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Social & Health Services (2017) washctapp “056(2); WAC 388-76-10120(3)-10180(1); RCW 26.44.100(2)(c), .125(2)(e); WAC 388-06A-0110.”
Ashley Brown v. Dept. of Social & Health Services, CPS (2015) washctapp “RCW 26.44.100(2). The alleged perpetrator may ask for review of the finding by DSHS.”
Alishio v. Department of Social & Health Services (2004) washctapp “…Wn.2d 1017 , 72 P.3d 761 (2003). Hisle, 113 Wn. App. at 412 . RCW 13.34.020. See RCW 13.34.020; RCW 26.44.010. See RCW 26.44.100(2)(c).”
Alishio v. DEPT. OF SOC. & HEALTH SERV. (2004) washctapp “…Hisle, 113 Wash.App. at 412 , 54 P.3d 687 . [13] RCW 13.34.020. [14] See RCW 13.34.020 and RCW 26.44.010. [15] See RCW 26.44.100(2)(c).”
Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (2019) washctapp “Garcia appealed to Thurston County Superior Court,12 which concluded that DSHS had failed to comply with RCW 26.44.100 by not providing oral notice13 to Garcia of its adverse CPS finding when it was practicable to do so.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.100(2)(d) — 3 cases
Ashley Brown v. Dept. of Social & Health Services, CPS (2015) washctapp “RCW 26.44.100(2). The alleged perpetrator may ask for review of the finding by DSHS.”
Dayanara Castillo v. State Of Washington Dshs (2017) washctapp
Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (2019) washctapp “Garcia appealed to Thurston County Superior Court,12 which concluded that DSHS had failed to comply with RCW 26.44.100 by not providing oral notice13 to Garcia of its adverse CPS finding when it was practicable to do so.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.100(4) — 1 case
Holly E. Snyder v. State of Washington, DSHS (2016) washctapp “Snyder argued that constructive notice of the outcome of the review determination was insufficient, and that RCW 26.44.100 and RCW 26.44.125 require the alleged perpetrator to receive actual notice before the 30-day appeal period commences.”
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.