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

Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.236 (2026)

Involuntary commitment hearing—Postponement—Continuance

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In any proceeding for involuntary commitment under this chapter, the court may continue or postpone such proceeding for a reasonable time on motion of the respondent for good cause, or on motion of the prosecuting attorney or the attorney general if:
(a) The respondent expressly consents to a continuance or delay and there is a showing of good cause; or
(b) Such continuance is required in the proper administration of justice and the respondent will not be substantially prejudiced in the presentation of the respondent's case.
(2) The court may continue a hearing on a petition filed under RCW 71.05.280(3) for good cause upon written request by the petitioner, respondent, or respondent's attorney.
(3) The court may on its own motion continue the case when required in due administration of justice and when the respondent will not be substantially prejudiced in the presentation of the respondent's case.
(4) The court shall state in any order of continuance or postponement the grounds for the continuance or postponement and whether detention will be extended.
[ 2020 c 302 s 37.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2022–2024 · leading case: In re Det. of A.C., 533 P.3d 81 (Wash. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Det. of A.C., 533 P.3d 81 (Wash. 2023). “280, which governs 14-day commitments, does not contain mandatory release language and that RCW 71.05.236 expressly allows continuances in commitment proceedings.”
In Re The Det. Of: A.c. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “And, RCW 71.05.236, another statute in the ITA statutory scheme, expressly sets forth the provisions for continuances in commitment proceedings.”
In Re The Det. Of: E.m.r.-r. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “302, § 37 (adding new section RCW 71.05.236), with LAWS OF 2020, ch. 302, § 38 (striking language from former RCW 71.”
In Re The Det. Of Z.L. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “If more treatment is needed after the 14-day period of intensive treatment, another hearing can be held to commit the person for 90 or 180 days, if they have harmed themselves, others, or property, or are gravely disabled.”
Det. Of Z.B.-F. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “concedes that forced medication alone is not a basis for a mistrial, and he makes no argument that the trial court should have granted his motion for a mistrial. Instead, Z.B.-F. frames his appeal as the trial court should have granted a continuance.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.236(1) — 3 cases
In Re The Det. Of: A.c. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “And, RCW 71.05.236, another statute in the ITA statutory scheme, expressly sets forth the provisions for continuances in commitment proceedings.”
In Re The Det. Of: E.m.r.-r. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “302, § 37 (adding new section RCW 71.05.236), with LAWS OF 2020, ch. 302, § 38 (striking language from former RCW 71.”
In Re The Det. Of Z.L. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “If more treatment is needed after the 14-day period of intensive treatment, another hearing can be held to commit the person for 90 or 180 days, if they have harmed themselves, others, or property, or are gravely disabled.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.236(1)(a) — 2 cases
In Re The Det. Of: A.c. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “And, RCW 71.05.236, another statute in the ITA statutory scheme, expressly sets forth the provisions for continuances in commitment proceedings.”
Det. Of Z.B.-F. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “concedes that forced medication alone is not a basis for a mistrial, and he makes no argument that the trial court should have granted his motion for a mistrial. Instead, Z.B.-F. frames his appeal as the trial court should have granted a continuance.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.236(4) — 1 case
In Re The Det. Of: E.m.r.-r. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “302, § 37 (adding new section RCW 71.05.236), with LAWS OF 2020, ch. 302, § 38 (striking language from former RCW 71.”
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.