Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 51.08.030 (2026)
"Child."
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
"Child" means every natural born child, posthumous child, stepchild, child legally adopted prior to the injury, child born after the injury where conception occurred prior to the injury, and dependent child in the legal custody and control of the worker, all while under the age of eighteen years, or under the age of twenty-three years while permanently enrolled at a full time course in an accredited school, and over the age of eighteen years if the child is a dependent as a result of a disability.
[ 2020 c 274 s 43; 1986 c 293 s 1; 1980 c 14 s 4. Prior: 1977 ex.s. c 323 s 4; 1977 ex.s. c 80 s 36; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 42 s 37; 1972 ex.s. c 65 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 77 s 1; 1961 c 23 s 51.08.030; prior: 1957 c 70 s 7; prior: (i) 1939 c 41 s 2, part; 1929 c 132 s 1, part; 1927 c 310 s 2, part; 1921 c 182 s 2, part; 1919 c 131 s 2, part; 1917 c 120 s 1, part; 1911 c 74 s 3, part; RRS s 7675, part. (ii) 1941 c 209 s 3, part; Rem. Supp. 1941 s 7679, part.]
Notes:
Severability—Effective date—1977 ex.s. c 323: See notes following RCW 51.04.040.
Purpose—Intent—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 80: See notes following RCW 4.16.190.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: Klossner v. San Juan Cnty., 605 P.2d 330 (Wash. 1980).
Klossner v. San Juan Cnty., 605 P.2d 330 (Wash. 1980). “RCW 51.08.030, .050; RCW 51.32.020,.025. The wrongful death and survival statutes, unlike those statutory provisions cited by respondent, contain no mention of stepchildren.”
Willoughby v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 147 Wash. 2d 725 (Wash. 2002). “020; see RCW 51.08.030 (defining “child”); RCW 51.”
Washington Statewide Org. of Stepparents v. Smith, 536 P.2d 1202 (Wash. 1975). “See RCW 51.08.030,-.050 and 51.32.005. This court, in In re Estate of Bordeaux, 37 Wn.”
Meyer v. Burger King Corp., 26 P.3d 925 (Wash. 2001). “" RCW 51.08.030. Patricia then is included in the Act's definition of a child for the limited purpose of determining whether she is entitled to compensation.”
Meyer v. Burger King Corp., 144 Wash. 2d 160 (Wash. 2001). “” RCW 51.08.030. Patricia then is included in the Act’s definition of a child for the limited purpose of determining whether she is entitled to compensation.”
Deal v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 477 P.2d 175 (Wash. 1970). “Finally, appellant warns that if this court does not allow recoupment the Department of Labor and Industries may be forced to refuse payment to all children similarly situated.”
Triplett v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 166 Wash. App. 423 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “093 defines sexual misconduct with a minor and includes some individuals up to age 21 as minors; RCW 51.08.030 for industrial insurance purposes defines “child” in specific ways depending upon age and dependency circumstances.”
Meyer v. Burger King Corp., 2 P.3d 1015 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “” RCW 51.08.030. Thus, Patricia fits within the Act’s definition of family.”
Triplett v. Wash. State Dept. of Soc., 268 P.3d 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “093 defines sexual misconduct with a minor and includes some individuals up to age 21 as minors; RCW 51.08.030 for industrial insurance purposes defines "child" in specific ways depending upon age and dependency circumstances.”
Seidler v. Amazon (W.D. Wash. 2024). “(“GINA”), and two workers’ compensation 6 statutes: RCW 51.08.030 and RCW 51.32.025. (Am. Compl.”
Willoughby v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 57 P.3d 611 (Wash. 2002). “020; see RCW 51.08.030 (defining "child"); RCW 51.”
Seidler v. Amazon (W.D. Wash. 2024). “at 5, 17 (purporting to raise claims under 13 RCW 51.08.030 and RCW 51.32.025 and referencing a pending workers’ compensation 14 appeal).”
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.