Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.21
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030 (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) The court may initiate a proceeding to impose a remedial sanction on its own motion or on the motion of a person aggrieved by a contempt of court in the proceeding to which the contempt is related. Except as provided in RCW 7.21.050, the court, after notice and hearing, may impose a remedial sanction authorized by this chapter.
(2) If the court finds that the person has failed or refused to perform an act that is yet within the person's power to perform, the court may find the person in contempt of court and impose one or more of the following remedial sanctions:
(a) Imprisonment if the contempt of court is of a type defined in RCW 7.21.010(1) (b) through (d). The imprisonment may extend only so long as it serves a coercive purpose.
(b) A forfeiture not to exceed two thousand dollars for each day the contempt of court continues.
(c) An order designed to ensure compliance with a prior order of the court.
(d) Any other remedial sanction other than the sanctions specified in (a) through (c) of this subsection if the court expressly finds that those sanctions would be ineffectual to terminate a continuing contempt of court.
(e)(i) In at-risk youth petition cases only under chapter 13.32A RCW and subject to the requirements under RCW 13.32A.250, commitment to a secure residential program with intensive wraparound services.
(ii) Beginning July 1, 2023, prior to committing any youth to a secure residential program with intensive wraparound services as a sanction for contempt in at-risk youth petition cases only under chapter 13.32A RCW, or for failure to appear at a court hearing in at-risk youth petition cases only under chapter 13.32A RCW, the court must:
(A) Consider, on the record, the mitigating and aggravating factors used to determine the appropriateness of detention for enforcement of its order;
(B) Enter written findings affirming that it considered all less restrictive options, that detention is the only appropriate alternative, including its rationale and the clear, cogent, and convincing evidence used to enforce the order;
(C) Afford the same due process considerations that it affords all youth in criminal contempt proceedings; and
(D) Seek input from all relevant parties, including the youth.
(iii) Nothing in this subsection (2)(e) or in RCW 13.32A.250, 13.34.165, or 28A.225.090 shall be construed to limit the court's inherent contempt power or curtail its exercise.
(3) The court may, in addition to the remedial sanctions set forth in subsection (2) of this section, order a person found in contempt of court to pay a party for any losses suffered by the party as a result of the contempt and any costs incurred in connection with the contempt proceeding, including reasonable attorney's fees.
(4) If the court finds that a person under the age of eighteen years has willfully disobeyed the terms of an order issued under *chapter 10.14 RCW, the court may find the person in contempt of court and may, as a sole sanction for such contempt, commit the person to juvenile detention for a period of time not to exceed seven days.
[ 2019 c 312 s 6; 2019 c 312 s 5; 2019 c 312 s 4; 2019 c 312 s 3; 2001 c 260 s 6; 1998 c 296 s 36; 1989 c 373 s 3.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: Chapter 10.14 RCW was repealed in its entirety by 2021 c 215 s 170, effective July 1, 2022.
Effective date—2019 c 312 ss 6 and 9: "Sections 6 and 9 of this act take effect July 1, 2023." [ 2019 c 312 s 22.]
Effective date—2019 c 312 ss 5 and 14: "Sections 5 and 14 of this act take effect July 1, 2021." [ 2019 c 312 s 21.]
Effective date—2019 c 312 ss 4, 8, and 12: "Sections 4, 8, and 12 of this act take effect July 1, 2020." [ 2019 c 312 s 20.]
Findings—Intent—2019 c 312: See note following RCW 7.21.080.
Findings—Intent—2001 c 260: "The legislature finds that unlawful harassment directed at a child by a person under the age of eighteen is not acceptable and can have serious consequences. The legislature further finds that some interactions between minors, such as "schoolyard scuffles," though not to be condoned, may not rise to the level of unlawful harassment. It is the intent of the legislature that a projection order sought by the parent or guardian of a child as provided for in this chapter be available only when the alleged behavior of the person under the age of eighteen to be restrained rises to the level set forth in chapter 10.14 RCW." [ 2001 c 260 s 1.]
Findings—Intent—Part headings not law—Short title—1998 c 296: See notes following RCW 74.13.025.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 146 cases (39 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: In Re Dependency of AK, 174 P.3d 11 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Dependency of AK, 174 P.3d 11 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 11× “Under the civil contempt statute, RCW 7.21.030, the court may detain juveniles governed by the dependency statutes for up to seven days for civil contempt of court.”
In re the Dependency of A.K., 162 Wash. 2d 632 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 11× “Under the civil contempt statute, RCW 7.21.030, the court may detain juveniles governed by the dependency statutes for up to seven days for civil contempt of court.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Sims, 441 P.3d 262 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 16× “Specifically at issue is whether the State has waived its sovereign immunity under RCW 7.21.030 as regards the imposition of interest concerning imposed *264 contempt sanctions.”
In re Rapid Settlements, LTD's Application for Approval of Transfer, 359 P.3d 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 9× “Because the order describes the forfeiture as “pursuant to RCW 7.21.030[(2)](b),” we construe the one-day purge period as incorporated by reference.”
In Re Proceeding Against Ferguson, 246 P.3d 1236 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 8× “In particular, she quoted the first sentence from RCW 7.21.030 in her motion, but did not include the second sentence that required notice and a hearing, and she did not include ellipses or any other indication of omitted text.”
In Re Mb, 3 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “" [57] RCW 7.21.030, "Findings—Intent—1998 c 296 §§ 36-39" (emphasis added).”
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Ferguson, 170 Wash. 2d 916 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 7× “The hearing officer found that Ferguson’s research did not support her assertion that the notice requirements under RCW 7.21.030 (contempt order), and a writ of restitution under CR 60(b) (relief from order due to fraud or other reasons) “are dispensed with by CR 65(b).”
In re the Interest of M.B., 101 Wash. App. 425 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “RCW 7.21.030(2)(e) provides: (2) If the court finds that the person has failed or refused to perform an act that is yet within the person’s power to perform, the court may find the person in contempt of court and impose .”
Matter of Marriage of Mathews, 853 P.2d 462 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “, which governs civil contempt proceedings, provides that the court may impose remedial sanctions including "[a]n order designed to ensure compliance with a prior order of the court.”
State v. A.L.H., 64 P.3d 1262 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “250(2) provides specific guidelines for an at-risk youth in contempt of court: “Failure by a party to comply with an [ARY] order entered under this chapter is a civil contempt of court as provided in RCW 7.”
In Re Jl, 166 P.3d 776 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “in a juvenile detention facility for 91 days, [3] longer than the standard disposition range for the felony of first degree theft, RCW 9A.”
In re the Interest of J.L., 140 Wash. App. 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “090(2) and RCW 7.21.030, it had the authority to incarcerate J.”
Show all 146 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030(1) — 20 cases
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Sims, 441 P.3d 262 (Wash. 2019). “Specifically at issue is whether the State has waived its sovereign immunity under RCW 7.21.030 as regards the imposition of interest concerning imposed *264 contempt sanctions.”
In re Rapid Settlements, LTD's Application for Approval of Transfer, 359 P.3d 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Because the order describes the forfeiture as “pursuant to RCW 7.21.030[(2)](b),” we construe the one-day purge period as incorporated by reference.”
In Re Proceeding Against Ferguson, 246 P.3d 1236 (Wash. 2011). “In particular, she quoted the first sentence from RCW 7.21.030 in her motion, but did not include the second sentence that required notice and a hearing, and she did not include ellipses or any other indication of omitted text.”
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Ferguson, 170 Wash. 2d 916 (Wash. 2011). “The hearing officer found that Ferguson’s research did not support her assertion that the notice requirements under RCW 7.21.030 (contempt order), and a writ of restitution under CR 60(b) (relief from order due to fraud or other reasons) “are dispensed with by CR 65(b).”
Templeton v. Hurtado, 965 P.2d 1131 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030(2) — 46 cases
In re Rapid Settlements, LTD's Application for Approval of Transfer, 359 P.3d 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Because the order describes the forfeiture as “pursuant to RCW 7.21.030[(2)](b),” we construe the one-day purge period as incorporated by reference.”
Care Plan. Assocs. v. Mayberry, 208 P.3d 1126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Sims, 441 P.3d 262 (Wash. 2019). “Specifically at issue is whether the State has waived its sovereign immunity under RCW 7.21.030 as regards the imposition of interest concerning imposed *264 contempt sanctions.”
State v. Salazar, 291 P.3d 255 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
In Re Guardianship of Wells, 208 P.3d 1126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030(2)(a) — 14 cases
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002).
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002).
Rhinevault v. Rhinevault, 959 P.2d 687 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
In Re Det. of Broer v. State, 957 P.2d 281 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Miller, 873 P.2d 1197 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030(2)(b) — 11 cases
In re Rapid Settlements, LTD's Application for Approval of Transfer, 359 P.3d 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Because the order describes the forfeiture as “pursuant to RCW 7.21.030[(2)](b),” we construe the one-day purge period as incorporated by reference.”
State v. Anthony Jason Sims (DSHS-appellant) (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Arthur Skinner, Res/cross-app V. Incity Props. Holdings Inc, App/cross-res (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Kitsap Cnty., V Kitsap Rifle & Revolver Club (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Christine Crabtree v. Donald Clinton Crabtree (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030(2)(c) — 12 cases
Matter of Marriage of Mathews, 853 P.2d 462 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “, which governs civil contempt proceedings, provides that the court may impose remedial sanctions including "[a]n order designed to ensure compliance with a prior order of the court.”
In Re Det. of Young, 185 P.3d 1180 (Wash. 2008).
In re the Det. of Young, 163 Wash. 2d 684 (Wash. 2008).
In Re The Marriage Of: Katrina L. Beardslee v. Steven F. Beardslee, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Arthur Skinner, Res/cross-app V. Incity Props. Holdings Inc, App/cross-res (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030(2)(d) — 5 cases
D.s.h.s., State Of Washington v. Stephanie L. Pond-hill (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Darrion Holiwell, V. Grenadinah Dela Llana (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Darrion Holiwell, V. Grenadinah Dela Llana (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
Kitsap Cnty., V Kitsap Rifle & Revolver Club (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
In the Matter of the Marriage of Mona Kelley & Donald Kelley (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030(2)(e) — 23 cases
In Re Dependency of AK, 174 P.3d 11 (Wash. 2007). “Under the civil contempt statute, RCW 7.21.030, the court may detain juveniles governed by the dependency statutes for up to seven days for civil contempt of court.”
In re the Dependency of A.K., 162 Wash. 2d 632 (Wash. 2007). “Under the civil contempt statute, RCW 7.21.030, the court may detain juveniles governed by the dependency statutes for up to seven days for civil contempt of court.”
In re the Interest of M.B., 101 Wash. App. 425 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 7.21.030(2)(e) provides: (2) If the court finds that the person has failed or refused to perform an act that is yet within the person’s power to perform, the court may find the person in contempt of court and impose .”
In Re Mb, 3 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “" [57] RCW 7.21.030, "Findings—Intent—1998 c 296 §§ 36-39" (emphasis added).”
In Re Jl, 166 P.3d 776 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “in a juvenile detention facility for 91 days, [3] longer than the standard disposition range for the felony of first degree theft, RCW 9A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030(3) — 59 cases
In re Rapid Settlements, LTD's Application for Approval of Transfer, 359 P.3d 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Because the order describes the forfeiture as “pursuant to RCW 7.21.030[(2)](b),” we construe the one-day purge period as incorporated by reference.”
RA Hanson Co., Inc. v. Magnuson, 903 P.2d 496 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
Brester v. Bollenbacher, 106 Wash. App. 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
In Re Parentage of Schroeder, 22 P.3d 1280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Sims, 441 P.3d 262 (Wash. 2019). “Specifically at issue is whether the State has waived its sovereign immunity under RCW 7.21.030 as regards the imposition of interest concerning imposed *264 contempt sanctions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030(4) — 3 cases
State v. T.A.W., 186 P.3d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. A.L.H., 64 P.3d 1262 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “250(2) provides specific guidelines for an at-risk youth in contempt of court: “Failure by a party to comply with an [ARY] order entered under this chapter is a civil contempt of court as provided in RCW 7.”
State v. ALH, 64 P.3d 1262 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030(d) — 1 case
Darrel Riley v. Suzette Riley (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
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.