Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.020 (2026)

Action by parent for seduction of child

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A father or mother, may maintain an action as plaintiff for the seduction of a child, and the guardian for the seduction of a ward, though the child or the ward be not living with or in the service of the plaintiff at the time of the seduction or afterwards, and there be no loss of service.
[ 1973 1st ex.s. c 154 s 5; Code 1881 s 10; 1877 p 5 s 10; 1869 p 4 s 10; RRS s 185.]

Notes:

Severability—1973 1st ex.s. c 154: See note following RCW 2.12.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2004–2016 · leading case: Angela Evans v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 380 P.3d 553 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Angela Evans v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 380 P.3d 553 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “¶6 Evans’s complaint asserted numerous causes of action, including seduction of a child under RCW 4.24.020; common law negligence; negligent hiring, retention, supervision and/or training; and negligent failure to report *31 suspected abuse under RCW 26.”
D.L.S. v. Maybin, 121 P.3d 1210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “for the tort of outrage; and that all defendants were hable to both plaintiffs for negligent infliction of emotional distress.”
Blumenshein v. Voelker, 100 P.3d 344 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “" Former RCW 4.24.020 (1996). In 1997, our Supreme Court held this language violated Washington's Equal Rights Amendment.”
Dan Albertson v. Pierce Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “For the first time on appeal, Teresa also contends that she is owed a duty as a parent under RCW 4.24.020. RCW 4.24.020 states that a parent may maintain an action for the seduction of a child.”
DLS v. Maybin, 121 P.3d 1210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “010 for injury to his child, and under RCW 4.24.020 for the seduction of his child.”
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.