Wash. Rev. Code » Title 71 · Chapter 71.05
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.012 (2026)

Legislative intent and finding

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is the intent of the legislature to enhance continuity of care for persons with serious behavioral health disorders that can be controlled or stabilized in a less restrictive alternative commitment. Within the guidelines stated in In re LaBelle[,] 107 Wn. 2d 196 (1986), the legislature intends to encourage appropriate interventions at a point when there is the best opportunity to restore the person to or maintain satisfactory functioning.
For persons with a prior history or pattern of repeated hospitalizations or law enforcement interventions due to decompensation, the consideration of prior history is particularly relevant in determining whether the person would receive, if released, such care as is essential for his or her health or safety.
Therefore, the legislature finds that for persons who are currently under a commitment order, a prior history of decompensation leading to repeated hospitalizations or law enforcement interventions should be given great weight in determining whether a new less restrictive alternative commitment should be ordered.
[ 2020 c 302 s 2; 1997 c 112 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: In re the Det. of M.K., 279 P.3d 897 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Det. of M.K., 279 P.3d 897 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “See RCW 71.05.012 (“[Consideration of prior mental history is particularly relevant in determining whether the person would receive, if released, such care as is essential for his or her health or safety.”
In re the Det. of C.K., 29 P.3d 69 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “RCW 71.05.012 (emphasis added). Also in 1997, the Legislature enacted RCW 71.”
In Re The Det. Of B.m., 432 P.3d 459 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “) For individuals under a commitment order “a prior history of decompensation leading to repeated hospitalizations or law enforcement interventions should be given great weight in determining whether a new less restrictive alternative commitment should be ordered.”
In re the Involuntary Treatment of: L.T.S., 197 Wash. App. 230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Under RCW 71.05.012, .212, and .245, “each order of commitment entered up to three years before the current commitment hearing becomes a part of the evidence against a person seeking denial of a petition for commitment.”
In Re the Det. of R.W., 988 P.2d 1034 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “) The basis for this statement can be found in RCW 71.05.012, 2 the section headed “Legislative *145 intent and finding,” which states: [F]or persons who are currently under a commitment order, a prior history of decompensation leading to repeated hospitalizations or law…”
In Re The Det. Of: D. W., 431 P.3d 1035 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Citing to RCW 71.05.012, DW claims that the State needs to prove a pattern of repeated hospitalizations or law enforcement intervention to establish that a person is gravely disabled under former RCW 71.”
In re the Det. of C.W., 20 P.3d 1052 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “No correctional institution or facility, or jail, shall be an evaluation and treatment facility within the meaning of this chapter!.”
In Re The Det. Of D.O. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “” RCW 71.05.012. The legislature further found that, “[f]or persons with a prior history or pattern of repeated hospitalizations .”
Est. of Viola Williams v. Lourdes Health Network (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 71.05.012(11). In their petition, Borromeo and Burke alleged that Williams qualified as "gravely disabled.”
In re the Involuntary Treatment of: A.J. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “at 626 (footnote omitted) (citing RCW 71.05.012, .212, and .245). Accordingly, because each commitment order has collateral consequences in subsequent petitions and hearings, the issue is not moot.”
In re the Det. of: R.Y. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Under RCW 71.05.012, .212. and .245, "each order of commitment entered up to three years before the current commitment hearing becomes a part of the evidence against a person seeking denial of a petition for commitment.”
In Re The Det. Of L. B., App. / X-res. v. State Of Washington, Res. / X-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “"(citing RCW 71.05.012)). -4- No. 75326-6-1 /5 commitmentfor psychological treatment to see if substantial evidence supports the court's findings and whether its findings support its legal conclusions.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.012(11) — 1 case
Est. of Viola Williams v. Lourdes Health Network (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 71.05.012(11). In their petition, Borromeo and Burke alleged that Williams qualified as "gravely disabled.”
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.