Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.08.060 (2026)

Guardian ad litem for incapacitated person

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When an incapacitated person is a party to an action in the superior courts 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 as guardian ad litem. Said guardian shall be appointed as follows:
(1) When the incapacitated person is plaintiff, upon the application of a relative or friend of the incapacitated person.
(2) When the incapacitated person is defendant, upon the application of a relative or friend of such incapacitated person, such application shall be made within thirty days after the service of summons if served in the state of Washington, and if served out of the state or service is made by publication, then such application shall be made within sixty days after the first publication of summons or within sixty days after the service out of the state. If no such application be made within the time above limited, application may be made by any party to the action.
[ 1996 c 249 s 5; 1899 c 91 s 1; RRS s 188.]

Notes:

Intent—1996 c 249: See note following RCW 2.56.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: In Re The Det. Of Richard Hatfield, 362 P.3d 997 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re The Det. Of Richard Hatfield, 362 P.3d 997 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 20× “On appeal, Hatfield contends that the commitment order should be reversed because (1) RCW 4.08.060 mandated MacDonald’s physical presence in the courtroom throughout the entirety of the trial, (2) the superior court GAL rules mandate a GAL’s presence at trial, (3) due process…”
Blakely Farms Trust v. Blakely, 111 Wash. App. 351 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 9× “RCW 4.08.060; Tai Vinh Vo v. Le Ngoc Pham, 81 Wn.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Gabhart, 186 Wash. App. 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “*179 ANALYSIS Absence of GAL ¶35 Smith seeks reversal of the order of dependency on the grounds that the absence of his GAL during the morning session of the third day of the dependency fact-finding hearing violated RCW 4.08.060, the Guardian ad Litem Rules, and due process.”
In re the Marriage of Lane, 354 P.3d 27 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “¶1 A guardian ad litem (GAL) appointed under RCW 4.08.060 does not have the authority to waive a substantial right of the incapacitated person.”
In re the Det. of Morgan, 253 P.3d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “The trial court initially granted the motion in an oral ruling, but then accepted the State’s request to take more evidence and weigh different interests before entering a final ruling.”
In re the Welfare of H.Q., 330 P.3d 195 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “¶24 Simply because a party has an appointed guardian or GAL, see RCW 4.08.060, however, does not preclude the party from seeking to voluntarily relinquish his parental rights.”
State v. Webbe, 122 Wash. App. 683 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “See RCW 4.08.060. The court has inherent authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for a civil litigant, see In re Marriage of Blakely, 111 Wn.”
In Re Det. of Morgan, 253 P.3d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “The trial court initially granted the motion in an oral ruling, but then accepted the State's request to take more evidence and weigh different interests before entering a final ruling.”
Tai Vinh Vo v. Le Ngoc Pham, 916 P.2d 462 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “7 Because RCW 4.08.060 requires that an insane person be represented either by a guardian or a guardian at litem and Shelley had neither, the trial court dismissed his complaint without prejudice.”
Franks v. Douglas, 358 P.2d 969 (Wash. 1961). · cites it 2× “When an insane person is a party to an action in the superior courts 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 as guardian ad litem.”
Dill v. Superior Court, 372 P.2d 541 (Wash. 1962). “The record discloses that Shirley Dill was granted a terminal leave from the hospital. She was not discharged as recovered, nor was there judicial restoration of her civil capacity.”
Harris v. Rivard, 390 P.2d 1004 (Wash. 1964). “Under RCW 4.08.060, they had the right to apply for the appointment of a guardian ad litem.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.08.060(1) — 2 cases
Blakely Farms Trust v. Blakely, 111 Wash. App. 351 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 4.08.060; Tai Vinh Vo v. Le Ngoc Pham, 81 Wn.”
Michael Chiofar Gummo Bear v. Michael Underwood (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.08.060(2) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Ryan Lewis Farr (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
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.