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

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.125 (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) A person who is named as an alleged perpetrator after October 1, 1998, in a founded report of child abuse or neglect has the right to seek review and amendment of the finding as provided in this section.
(2) Within thirty calendar days after the department has notified the alleged perpetrator under RCW 26.44.100 that the person is named as an alleged perpetrator in a founded report of child abuse or neglect, he or she may request that the department review the finding. The request must be made in writing. The written notice provided by the department must contain at least the following information in plain language:
(a) Information about the department's investigative finding as it relates to the alleged perpetrator;
(b) Sufficient factual information to apprise the alleged perpetrator of the date and nature of the founded reports;
(c) That the alleged perpetrator has the right to submit to child protective services a written response regarding the child protective services finding which, if received, shall be filed in the department's records;
(d) That information in the department's records, including information about this founded report, may be considered in a later investigation or proceeding related to a different allegation of child abuse or neglect or child custody;
(e) That founded allegations of child abuse or neglect may be used by the department in determining:
(i) If a perpetrator is qualified to be licensed or approved to care for children or vulnerable adults; or
(ii) If a perpetrator is qualified to be employed by the department in a position having unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults;
(f) That the alleged perpetrator has a right to challenge a founded allegation of child abuse or neglect.
(3) If a request for review is not made as provided in this subsection, the alleged perpetrator may not further challenge the finding and shall have no right to agency review or to an adjudicative hearing or judicial review of the finding, unless he or she can show that the department did not comply with the notice requirements of RCW 26.44.100.
(4) Upon receipt of a written request for review, the department shall review and, if appropriate, may amend the finding. Management level staff within the department designated by the secretary shall be responsible for the review. The review must be completed within thirty days after receiving the written request for review. The review must be conducted in accordance with procedures the department establishes by rule. Upon completion of the review, the department shall notify the alleged perpetrator in writing of the agency's determination. The notification must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the person's last known address.
(5) If, following agency review, the report remains founded, the person named as the alleged perpetrator in the report may request an adjudicative hearing to contest the finding. The adjudicative proceeding is governed by chapter 34.05 RCW and this section. The request for an adjudicative proceeding must be filed within thirty calendar days after receiving notice of the agency review determination. If a request for an adjudicative proceeding is not made as provided in this subsection, the alleged perpetrator may not further challenge the finding and shall have no right to agency review or to an adjudicative hearing or judicial review of the finding.
(6) Reviews and hearings conducted under this section are confidential and shall not be open to the public. Information about reports, reviews, and hearings may be disclosed only in accordance with federal and state laws pertaining to child welfare records and child protective services reports.
(7) The department may adopt rules to implement this section.
[ 2018 c 58 s 64; 2012 c 259 s 11; 1998 c 314 s 9.]

Notes:

Effective date—2018 c 58: See note following RCW 28A.655.080.
Effective date—1998 c 314 s 9: "Section 9 of this act takes effect October 1, 1998." [ 1998 c 314 s 45.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Holly E. Snyder v. State of Washington, DSHS, 376 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Holly E. Snyder v. State of Washington, DSHS, 376 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “100 and RCW 26.44.125 require the alleged perpetrator to receive actual notice before the 30-day appeal period commences.”
Tyner v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 1 P.3d 1148 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “The Legislature enacted a new section, RCW 26.44.125, to articulate this right of review: (1) A person who is named as an alleged perpetrator after October 1, 1998, in a founded report of child abuse or neglect has the right to seek review and amendment of the finding as…”
Ashley Brown v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., CPS, 360 P.3d 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.44.125(4). ¶39 If, following agency review, DSHS sustains the finding of neglect, the alleged perpetrator may request an adjudicative hearing to contest the finding.”
In re the Dependency of H.S., 356 P.3d 202 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “832, RCW 26.44.125(2)(e), WAC 388-101--3090(2)(d), WAC 388-97-1820(l)(a), WAC 388-145-0230(2)(b) and (c), former WAC 388-160-0195(2)(a) and (b) (2004), former WAC 388-147-0110(2)(a) and (b) (2001), and former WAC 388-148-0098(1) and (2) (2004).”
Tyner v. DSHS, Child Prot. Serv., 1 P.3d 1148 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “The Legislature enacted a new section, RCW 26.44.125, to articulate this right of review: (1) A person who is named as an alleged perpetrator after October 1, 1998, in a founded report of child abuse or neglect has the right to seek review and amendment of the finding as…”
Ruland v. State, Dshs, 182 P.3d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “Substantial Compliance ¶ 20 First, the Rulands argue that they "substantially complied with the notice and written review requirements of RCW 26.44.125, and thus invoked the court's jurisdiction to hear the neglect matter.”
Ruland v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “Substantial Compliance ¶20 First, the Rulands argue that they “substantially complied with the notice and written review requirements of RCW 26.44.125, and thus invoked the court’s jurisdiction to hear the neglect matter.”
Tomas Rios-Garcia v. Washington Dep't Of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 21× “At issue is whether a 30-day time frame for requesting review provided by RCW 26.44.125 and a differently-worded department regulation require the request to be mailed, or require it to be received, within 30 days.”
Brooke Howell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 436 P.3d 368 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The administrative hearing process granted under RCW 26.44.125 to a person who asks for review of a finding of child neglect by DSHS does not consider how the person’s actions are related to her suitability for affected employment.”
Dayanara Castillo v. State Of Washington Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “RCW 26.44.125 governs an alleged perpetrator’s right to challenge a founded finding of child neglect.”
Rogers v. Dep't of Child. Youth & Families (W.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 6× “) Documents containing information regarding the identity of persons making 17 reports regarding child abuse or neglect, and all files, reports, records, communications, and 18 working papers used or developed in the investigation or provision of protective services are 19…”
Kendal Lewis v. Dep't of Child., Youth & Fam. Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “40081-6-III Lewis v Dep’t of Children, Youth, Families RCW 26.44.125(4).”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.125(1) — 6 cases
Holly E. Snyder v. State of Washington, DSHS, 376 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “100 and RCW 26.44.125 require the alleged perpetrator to receive actual notice before the 30-day appeal period commences.”
Ruland v. State, Dshs, 182 P.3d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Substantial Compliance ¶ 20 First, the Rulands argue that they "substantially complied with the notice and written review requirements of RCW 26.44.125, and thus invoked the court's jurisdiction to hear the neglect matter.”
Carla Swanson v. Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Tomas Rios-Garcia v. Washington Dep't Of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “At issue is whether a 30-day time frame for requesting review provided by RCW 26.44.125 and a differently-worded department regulation require the request to be mailed, or require it to be received, within 30 days.”
Jessica Kirkwood v. Dep't of Child., Youth & Families (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.125(2) — 8 cases
Tomas Rios-Garcia v. Washington Dep't Of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “At issue is whether a 30-day time frame for requesting review provided by RCW 26.44.125 and a differently-worded department regulation require the request to be mailed, or require it to be received, within 30 days.”
Yevgeny Semenenko v. Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Ruland v. State, Dshs, 182 P.3d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Substantial Compliance ¶ 20 First, the Rulands argue that they "substantially complied with the notice and written review requirements of RCW 26.44.125, and thus invoked the court's jurisdiction to hear the neglect matter.”
Ruland v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Substantial Compliance ¶20 First, the Rulands argue that they “substantially complied with the notice and written review requirements of RCW 26.44.125, and thus invoked the court’s jurisdiction to hear the neglect matter.”
Dayanara Castillo v. State Of Washington Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 26.44.125 governs an alleged perpetrator’s right to challenge a founded finding of child neglect.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.125(2)(1998) — 1 case
Daljit Dhaliwal v. Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.125(2)(e) — 2 cases
In re the Dependency of H.S., 356 P.3d 202 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “832, RCW 26.44.125(2)(e), WAC 388-101--3090(2)(d), WAC 388-97-1820(l)(a), WAC 388-145-0230(2)(b) and (c), former WAC 388-160-0195(2)(a) and (b) (2004), former WAC 388-147-0110(2)(a) and (b) (2001), and former WAC 388-148-0098(1) and (2) (2004).”
In re the Dependency of H.S. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.125(3) — 5 cases
Dayanara Castillo v. State Of Washington Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 26.44.125 governs an alleged perpetrator’s right to challenge a founded finding of child neglect.”
Ruland v. State, Dshs, 182 P.3d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Substantial Compliance ¶ 20 First, the Rulands argue that they "substantially complied with the notice and written review requirements of RCW 26.44.125, and thus invoked the court's jurisdiction to hear the neglect matter.”
Ruland v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Substantial Compliance ¶20 First, the Rulands argue that they “substantially complied with the notice and written review requirements of RCW 26.44.125, and thus invoked the court’s jurisdiction to hear the neglect matter.”
Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Yevgeny Semenenko v. Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.125(4) — 9 cases
Holly E. Snyder v. State of Washington, DSHS, 376 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “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 Soc. & Health Servs., CPS, 360 P.3d 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 26.44.125(4). ¶39 If, following agency review, DSHS sustains the finding of neglect, the alleged perpetrator may request an adjudicative hearing to contest the finding.”
Ruland v. State, Dshs, 182 P.3d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Substantial Compliance ¶ 20 First, the Rulands argue that they "substantially complied with the notice and written review requirements of RCW 26.44.125, and thus invoked the court's jurisdiction to hear the neglect matter.”
Ruland v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Substantial Compliance ¶20 First, the Rulands argue that they “substantially complied with the notice and written review requirements of RCW 26.44.125, and thus invoked the court’s jurisdiction to hear the neglect matter.”
Tomas Rios-Garcia v. Washington Dep't Of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “At issue is whether a 30-day time frame for requesting review provided by RCW 26.44.125 and a differently-worded department regulation require the request to be mailed, or require it to be received, within 30 days.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.125(5) — 9 cases
Holly E. Snyder v. State of Washington, DSHS, 376 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “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 Soc. & Health Servs., CPS, 360 P.3d 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 26.44.125(4). ¶39 If, following agency review, DSHS sustains the finding of neglect, the alleged perpetrator may request an adjudicative hearing to contest the finding.”
Tomas Rios-Garcia v. Washington Dep't Of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “At issue is whether a 30-day time frame for requesting review provided by RCW 26.44.125 and a differently-worded department regulation require the request to be mailed, or require it to be received, within 30 days.”
Jessica Kirkwood v. Dep't of Child., Youth & Families (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Kendal Lewis v. Dep't of Child., Youth & Fam. Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “40081-6-III Lewis v Dep’t of Children, Youth, Families RCW 26.44.125(4).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.125(6) — 1 case
Rogers v. Dep't of Child. Youth & Families (W.D. Wash. 2021). “) Documents containing information regarding the identity of persons making 17 reports regarding child abuse or neglect, and all files, reports, records, communications, and 18 working papers used or developed in the investigation or provision of protective services are 19…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.125(7) — 1 case
Tomas Rios-Garcia v. Washington Dep't Of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “At issue is whether a 30-day time frame for requesting review provided by RCW 26.44.125 and a differently-worded department regulation require the request to be mailed, or require it to be received, within 30 days.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.44.125(l) — 1 case
Ruland v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Substantial Compliance ¶20 First, the Rulands argue that they “substantially complied with the notice and written review requirements of RCW 26.44.125, and thus invoked the court’s jurisdiction to hear the neglect matter.”
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.