Wash. Rev. Code » Title 71 · Chapter 71.05

Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.285

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In determining whether an inpatient or less restrictive alternative commitment under the process provided in RCW 71.05.280 and 71.05.320(4) is appropriate, great weight shall be given to evidence of a prior history or pattern of decompensation and discontinuation of treatment resulting in: (1) Repeated hospitalizations; or (2) repeated peace officer interventions resulting in juvenile offenses, criminal charges, diversion programs, or jail admissions. Such evidence may be used to provide a factual basis for concluding that the individual would not receive, if released, such care as is essential for his or her health or safety.
[ 2018 c 201 s 3011; 2001 c 12 s 1; 1997 c 112 s 23.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—Effective date—2018 c 201: See notes following RCW 41.05.018.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: In re the Involuntary Treatment of: L.T.S.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Involuntary Treatment of: L.T.S. (2016) washctapp · cites it 10× “He argues the trial court improperly commented on the evidence in violation of article IV, section 16 of the Washington Constitution when it gave a jury instruction based on RCW 71.05.285. Because the instruction was based on substantive law, not legislative intent—as was the…”
In re the Detention of C.K. (2001) washctapp · cites it 7× “Also in 1997, the Legislature enacted RCW 71.05.285, 7 *73 which reiterates that in determining whether a person is gravely disabled, courts can consider that person’s “prior history or pattern of decompensation and discontinuation of treatment.”
In Re The Detention Of: D. W. (2018) washctapp · cites it 3× “” RCW 71.05.285. B. PRIOR HOSPITALIZATION 2 In LaBelle, our Supreme Court addressed former RCW 71.”
In Re the Detention of R.W. (1999) washctapp “2 A similar statement is found in RCW 71.05.285: For the purposes of continued less restrictive alternative commitment under the process provided in RCW 71.”
In Re The Detention Of D.O. (2025) washctapp · cites it 20× “” RCW 71.05.285. D.O. also assigns error to how the court handled evidence about his guardianship, arguing that it improperly modified an instruction he proposed and that it admitted unfairly prejudicial testimony from his guardian.”
In Re The Detention Of T. D. B. (2020) washctapp · cites it 3× “Such evidence may be used as a “factual basis” for determining “that the individual would not receive, if released, such care as is essential for his or her health or safety.”
In re the Detention of: R.Y. (2016) washctapp “Clearly, this allegation is derived from RCW 71.05.285, which provides that a prior history of decomposition and discontinuation of treatment resulting in repeated hospitalizations (or the other consequences identified) is evidence, which "may be used to provide a factual basis…”
In the Matter of the Detention of: L.T.S. (2017) washctapp “1 In that case, this court rejected an argument that an instruction based on RCW 71.05.285 constituted a judicial comment on the evidence.”
In Re The Detention Of B.r. (2017) washctapp “Under RCW 71.05.285, the trial court was required to give “great weight” to this evidence when determining whether inpatient or less restrictive alternative commitment was appropriate, and “[s]uch evidence may be used to provide a factual basis for concluding that the individual…”
In Re The Detention Of B.c. (2024) washctapp “RCW 71.05.285 states, “Such evidence may be used to provide a factual basis for concluding that the individual would not receive, if released, such care as is essential for his or her health or safety.”
In Re the Detention of S.P. (2024) washctapp “RCW 71.05.285. 2. Prong (a)—RCW 71.05.020(25)(a) S.”
In Re The Detention Of A.p. (2024) washctapp “avers, are continued mental health treatment, continued evaluation, and possible continued detainment at the expiration of the 14-day period under RCW 71.05.285. In so arguing, A.P. overlooks important differences between the two classes: one class has agreed to continued mental…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.