Wash. Rev. Code § 4.08.050
Guardian ad litem for infant
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided under RCW 28A.225.035 and 7.105.100, when an infant is a party he or she shall appear by guardian, or if he or she has no guardian, or in the opinion of the court the guardian is an improper person, the court shall appoint one to act. Said guardian shall be appointed as follows:
(1) When the infant is plaintiff, upon the application of the infant, if he or she be of the age of fourteen years, or if under that age, upon the application of a relative or friend of the infant.
(2) When the infant is defendant, upon the application of the infant, if he or she be of the age of fourteen years, and applies within thirty days after the service of the summons; if he or she be under the age of fourteen, or neglects to apply, then upon the application of any other party to the action, or of a relative or friend of the infant.
[ 2022 c 268 s 32; 2021 c 215 s 89; 1996 c 134 s 7; 1992 c 111 s 9; 1891 c 30 s 1; Code 1881 s 12; 1854 p 132 ss 6, 7; RRS s 187.]
Notes:
Effective dates—2022 c 268: See note following RCW 7.105.010.
Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Findings—1992 c 111: "The legislature finds that:
Domestic violence is a problem of immense proportions affecting individuals as well as communities. Domestic violence has long been recognized as being at the core of other major social problems: Child abuse, other crimes of violence against person or property, juvenile delinquency, and alcohol and drug abuse. Domestic violence costs millions of dollars each year in the state of Washington for health care, absence from work, services to children, and more. The crisis is growing.
While the existing protection order process can be a valuable tool to increase safety for victims and to hold batterers accountable, specific problems in its use have become evident. Victims have difficulty completing the paperwork required particularly if they have limited English proficiency; model forms have been modified to be inconsistent with statutory language; different forms create confusion for law enforcement agencies about the contents and enforceability of orders. Refinements are needed so that victims have the easy, quick, and effective access to the court system envisioned at the time the protection order process was first created.
When courts issue mutual protection orders without the filing of separate written petitions, notice to each respondent, and hearing on each petition, the original petitioner is deprived of due process. Mutual protection orders label both parties as violent and treat both as being equally at fault: Batterers conclude that the violence is excusable or provoked and victims who are not violent are confused and stigmatized. Enforcement may be ineffective and mutual orders may be used in other proceedings as evidence that the victim is equally at fault.
Valuable information about the reported incidents of domestic violence in the state of Washington is unobtainable without gathering data from all law enforcement agencies; without this information, it is difficult for policymakers, funders, and service providers to plan for the resources and services needed to address the issue.
Domestic violence must be addressed more widely and more effectively in our state: Greater knowledge by professionals who deal frequently with domestic violence is essential to enforce existing laws, to intervene in domestic violence situations that do not come to the attention of the law enforcement or judicial systems, and to reduce and prevent domestic violence by intervening before the violence becomes severe.
Adolescent dating violence is occurring at increasingly high rates: Preventing and confronting adolescent violence is important in preventing potential violence in future adult relationships." [ 1992 c 111 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: In re Dependency of E.H.
In re Dependency of E.H. (2018)
“RCW 4.08.050. Thus, the general rule in Washington has historically been that children cannot appear in court as parties and must instead appear by and through guardians.”
North American Council on Adoptable Children v. Department of Social & Health Services (1987)
“This motion stated that it was for the purpose of "litigating who the appropriate Guardian ad litem is pursuant to RCW 4.08.050." The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss NACAC's complaint without expressly referring to NACAC's two new motions.”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2009)
“[17] The court's order stated that there were "disputes of fact concerning whether the plaintiffs' [PSA] with Quadrant were negotiated contracts or contracts of adhesion.”
DeYoung v. Providence Medical Center (1998)
“Minors are not similarly situated to adults because they are unable to pursue an action on their own until adulthood, RCW 4.08.050, and they generally lack the experience, judgment, knowledge and resources to effectively assert their rights.”
DeYoung v. Providence Medical Center (1998)
“Minors are not similarly situated to adults because they are unable to pursue an action on their own until adulthood, RCW 4.08.050, and they generally lack the experience, judgment, knowledge and resources to effectively assert their rights.”
In Re The Detention Of Richard Hatfield (2015)
“These rules shall also apply to guardians ad litem appointed pursuant to RCW 4.08.050 and RCW 4.08.060, if the appointment is under the procedures of Titles 11, 13 or 26 RCW.”
Hayward v. Hansen (1982)
“See RCW 4.08.050. Moreover, as noted above, this action was never tried on its merits, and, since the guardian ad litem did not sign the petition, neither the trial court nor the appellate courts can be certain the child was properly before the court or approved the action taken…”
Kelley v. Centennial Contractors Enterprises, Inc. (2008)
“In Washington, RCW 4.08.050 requires that “when an infant is a party he or she shall appear by guardian.”
Newell v. Ayers (1979)
“2 They cite RCW 4.08.050: When an infant is a party he shall appear by guardian, or if he has no guardian, or in the opinion of the court the guardian is an improper person, the court shall appoint one to act.”
Kelley v. Centennial Contractors Enterprises, Inc. (2010)
“” RCW 4.08.050(1) (emphasis added). Clearly the burden to request a guardian ad litem was not on the defendant, Centennial, as Kelley claims.”
Taylor v. Enumclaw School District No. 216 (2006)
“¶15 Because minors are unable to pursue an action on their own until adulthood, RCW 4.08.050 permits guardians to bring suits on behalf of their minor children.”
Neilson ex rel. Crump v. Blanchette (2009)
“Neil-son was required, pursuant to RCW 4.08.050, to file the petition for the protection order on her behalf.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.08.050(1) — 4 cases
Kelley v. Centennial Contractors Enterprises, Inc. (2010)
“” RCW 4.08.050(1) (emphasis added). Clearly the burden to request a guardian ad litem was not on the defendant, Centennial, as Kelley claims.”
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.