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

Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.245 (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) In making a determination of whether a person is gravely disabled, presents a likelihood of serious harm, or is in need of assisted outpatient treatment in a hearing conducted under RCW 71.05.240 or 71.05.320, the court must consider the symptoms and behavior of the respondent in light of all available evidence concerning the respondent's historical behavior.
(2) Symptoms or behavior which standing alone would not justify civil commitment may support a finding of grave disability or likelihood of serious harm, or a finding that the person is in need of assisted outpatient treatment, when: (a) Such symptoms or behavior are closely associated with symptoms or behavior which preceded and led to a past incident of involuntary hospitalization, severe deterioration, or one or more violent acts; (b) these symptoms or behavior represent a marked and concerning change in the baseline behavior of the respondent; and (c) without treatment, the continued deterioration of the respondent is probable.
(3) In making a determination of whether there is a likelihood of serious harm in a hearing conducted under RCW 71.05.240 or 71.05.320, the court shall give great weight to any evidence before the court regarding whether the person has: (a) A recent history of one or more violent acts; or (b) a recent history of one or more commitments under this chapter or its equivalent provisions under the laws of another state which were based on a likelihood of serious harm. The existence of prior violent acts or commitments under this chapter or its equivalent shall not be the sole basis for determining whether a person presents a likelihood of serious harm.
For the purposes of this subsection "recent" refers to the period of time not exceeding three years prior to the current hearing.
[ 2022 c 210 s 14; 2018 c 291 s 14; 2015 c 250 s 8; 2010 c 280 s 3; 1999 c 13 s 6; 1998 c 297 s 14.]

Notes:

Effective date—2013 c 335; 2011 2nd sp.s. c 6; 2010 c 280 ss 2 and 3: See note following RCW 71.05.212.
Purpose—Construction—1999 c 13: See note following RCW 10.77.010.
Effective dates—Severability—Intent—1998 c 297: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · 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 8× “”); RCW 71.05.245. Accordingly, each commitment order has a collateral consequence in subsequent petitions and hearings, allowing us to render relief if we hold that the detention under a civil commitment order was not warranted.”
In re Det. of A.C., 533 P.3d 81 (Wash. 2023). · cites it 3× “, concurring/dissenting sense since these new proceedings can properly include the individuals’ most recent commitment history under RCW 71.05.245. While the majority’s holding would allow the detained persons to have their liberty, it is a fleeting liberty.”
In re Det. of D.H., 533 P.3d 97 (Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “These new commitment proceedings could properly include the individual’s most recent commitment history under RCW 71.05.245. While the majority’s holding would provide D.”
In re the Det. of C.K., 29 P.3d 69 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Post -LaBelle Legislation LaBelle foreshadowed the specialized mental-health meaning of “likelihood of serious harm” that the Legislature subsequently explained in RCW 71.05.245: In making a determination of whether there is a likelihood of serious harm in a hearing conducted…”
L. H. v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “argues that, in granting the petition, the trial court failed to consider mandatory factors set out in RCW 71.05.245. The record does not support this argument.”
In Re The Det. Of B.m. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “In making this decision, the trial court “must consider the factors specified under RCW 71.05.245,” including “symptoms and behavior of the respondent in light of all available evidence concerning the respondent's historical behavior.”
In Re Det. Of: M.E.F. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “245 requires the court to give great weight to any evidence before the court regarding whether the person has a recent history of prior violent acts, or a recent history of one of more commitments under the chapter. The State argued the court should grant the document judicial…”
In Re The Det. Of Marshall Mcgrath (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “212 and the court must consider the factors specified under RCW 71.05.245 as they apply to the question of whether to enforce, modify, or revoke a court order for involuntary treatment.”
In The Matter Of The Det. Of M.b. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “RCW 71.05.245(3) provides that in determining whether there is a likelihood of serious harm, the trial court must give great weight to the person’s recent history of one or more violent acts or recent history of one or more commitments based on a likelihood of serious harm,…”
Det. of M.Z. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “” RCW 71.05.245. In a civil commitment proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving that the respondent is gravely disabled by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.”
State Of Washington, V. R.p. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “22 RCW 71.05.245. 23 RCW 71.05.245. 7 No. 81524-5-I/8 In In re the Detention of S.”
Det. of J.P. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× ““Symptoms or behavior which standing alone would not justify civil commitment may support a finding of grave disability” when the symptoms “are closely associated with symptoms or behavior which preceded and led to a past incident of involuntary hospitalization, severe…”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.245(1) — 14 cases
In re Det. of A.C., 533 P.3d 81 (Wash. 2023). “, concurring/dissenting sense since these new proceedings can properly include the individuals’ most recent commitment history under RCW 71.05.245. While the majority’s holding would allow the detained persons to have their liberty, it is a fleeting liberty.”
In re Det. of D.H., 533 P.3d 97 (Wash. 2023). “These new commitment proceedings could properly include the individual’s most recent commitment history under RCW 71.05.245. While the majority’s holding would provide D.”
In Re The Det. Of B.m. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “In making this decision, the trial court “must consider the factors specified under RCW 71.05.245,” including “symptoms and behavior of the respondent in light of all available evidence concerning the respondent's historical behavior.”
Det. of J.P. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). ““Symptoms or behavior which standing alone would not justify civil commitment may support a finding of grave disability” when the symptoms “are closely associated with symptoms or behavior which preceded and led to a past incident of involuntary hospitalization, severe…”
In Re The Det. Of A.N. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.245(2) — 2 cases
In Re The Det. Of A.N. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Det. of J.P. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). ““Symptoms or behavior which standing alone would not justify civil commitment may support a finding of grave disability” when the symptoms “are closely associated with symptoms or behavior which preceded and led to a past incident of involuntary hospitalization, severe…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.245(3) — 17 cases
In The Matter Of The Det. Of M.b. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “RCW 71.05.245(3) provides that in determining whether there is a likelihood of serious harm, the trial court must give great weight to the person’s recent history of one or more violent acts or recent history of one or more commitments based on a likelihood of serious harm,…”
In Re Det. Of: M.E.F. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “245 requires the court to give great weight to any evidence before the court regarding whether the person has a recent history of prior violent acts, or a recent history of one of more commitments under the chapter. The State argued the court should grant the document judicial…”
State Of Washington, V. J.w. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Det. of M.Z. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “” RCW 71.05.245. In a civil commitment proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving that the respondent is gravely disabled by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.”
In Re The Det. Of: C.c. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.245(3)(a) — 1 case
In re Det. of A.C., 533 P.3d 81 (Wash. 2023). “, concurring/dissenting sense since these new proceedings can properly include the individuals’ most recent commitment history under RCW 71.05.245. While the majority’s holding would allow the detained persons to have their liberty, it is a fleeting liberty.”
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.