Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 74.15.010 (2026)
Declaration of purpose
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) To safeguard the health, safety, and well-being of children, expectant mothers and developmentally disabled persons receiving care away from their own homes, which is paramount over the right of any person to provide care;
(2) To strengthen and encourage family unity and to sustain parental rights and responsibilities to the end that foster care is provided only when a child's family, through the use of all available resources, is unable to provide necessary care;
(3) To promote the development of a sufficient number and variety of adequate foster family homes and maternity-care facilities, both public and private, through the cooperative efforts of public agencies and related groups;
(4) To provide consultation to agencies caring for children, expectant mothers or developmentally disabled persons in order to help them to improve their methods of and facilities for care;
(5) To license agencies as defined in RCW 74.15.020 and to assure the users of such agencies, their parents, the community at large and the agencies themselves that adequate minimum standards are maintained by all agencies caring for children, expectant mothers and developmentally disabled persons.
[ 2018 c 284 s 65; 2009 c 520 s 12; 1995 c 302 s 2; 1983 c 3 s 192; 1977 ex.s. c 80 s 70; 1967 c 172 s 1.]
Notes:
Intent—1995 c 302: "The legislature declares that the state of Washington has a compelling interest in protecting and promoting the health, welfare, and safety of children, including those who receive care away from their own homes. The legislature further declares that no person or agency has a right to be licensed under this chapter to provide care for children. The health, safety, and well-being of children must be the paramount concern in determining whether to issue a license to an applicant, whether to suspend or revoke a license, and whether to take other licensing action. The legislature intends, through the provisions of this act, to provide the department of social and health services with additional enforcement authority to carry out the purpose and provisions of this act. Furthermore, administrative law judges should receive specialized training so that they have the specialized expertise required to appropriately review licensing decisions of the department.
Children placed in foster care are particularly vulnerable and have a special need for placement in an environment that is stable, safe, and nurturing. For this reason, foster homes should be held to a high standard of care, and department decisions regarding denial, suspension, or revocation of foster care licenses should be upheld on review if there are reasonable grounds for such action." [ 1995 c 302 s 1.]
Purpose—Intent—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 80: See notes following RCW 4.16.190.
Severability—1967 c 172: "If any provision of this 1967 amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1967 c 172 s 24.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1988–2020 · leading case: Sheikh v. Choe, 128 P.3d 574 (Wash. 2006).
Sheikh v. Choe, 128 P.3d 574 (Wash. 2006). “010 declares that "[i]t is the intent of the legislature that ... protective services shall be made available in an effort .”
Aba Sheikh v. Choe, 156 Wash. 2d 441 (Wash. 2006). “010 declares that “[i]t is the intent of the legislature that.”
New Hope of Washington v. Ramquist, 765 P.2d 30 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “010; RCW 74.15.010. 1 RCW 13.34 charges child-placing agencies with the primary responsibility of reuniting dependent children with their parents.”
Niece v. Elmview Grp. Home, 929 P.2d 420 (Wash. 1997). “While I agree that questions of public policy are properly left to the Legislature, the Legislature has already addressed the issue of protecting the rights of the disabled living in group homes.”
Niece v. Elmview Grp. Home, 131 Wash. 2d 39 (Wash. 1997). “While I agree that questions of pubic policy are properly left to the Legislature, the Legislature has already addressed the issue of protecting the rights of the disabled living in group homes.”
McKinney v. State, 134 Wash. 2d 388 (Wash. 1998). “010 and RCW 74.15.010(2). Recent legislation reiterates preservation of the family and reunification of a dependent child with his or her parents are goals for dependent children, where feasible.”
McKinney v. State, 950 P.2d 461 (Wash. 1998). “010 and RCW 74.15.010(2). Recent legislation reiterates preservation of the family and reunification of a dependent child with his or her parents are goals for dependent children, where feasible.”
Favors v. Matzke, 770 P.2d 686 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “In addition, RCW 74.15.010 provides, in part: The purpose of chapter 74.”
In re the Dependency of A.N., 973 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Rather, the term is defined in the Family Reconciliation Act (FRA) as “a crisis residential center, or portion thereof, that has locking doors, locking windows, or a secured perimeter, designed and operated to prevent a child from leaving without permission of the facility staff.”
Blais v. Washington State Dep't of Child., Youth, & Families (E.D. Wash. 2020). “9 Wash. Rev. Code § 74.15.010 provides a declaration of purpose.”
Tamika Boone, V State Of Wa Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 74.15.010 states the legislative purpose of the licensing scheme for day cares is, in relevant part: (1) To safeguard the health, safety, and well-being of children .”
C.l. & Simeon J. Osborn As Litig. Guardian For S.l., Res. v. State Of Wa., Dshs, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “010; RCW 74.15.010; WAC 388-148-1320, -1370. Statutory imperatives as well as strong public policy grounds support recognition of a cause of action in tort for prospective adoptive parents against adoption placement agencies that negligently fail to disclose pertinent…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 74.15.010(1) — 2 cases
Sheikh v. Choe, 128 P.3d 574 (Wash. 2006). “010 declares that "[i]t is the intent of the legislature that ... protective services shall be made available in an effort .”
Aba Sheikh v. Choe, 156 Wash. 2d 441 (Wash. 2006). “010 declares that “[i]t is the intent of the legislature that.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 74.15.010(2) — 4 cases
McKinney v. State, 134 Wash. 2d 388 (Wash. 1998). “010 and RCW 74.15.010(2). Recent legislation reiterates preservation of the family and reunification of a dependent child with his or her parents are goals for dependent children, where feasible.”
McKinney v. State, 950 P.2d 461 (Wash. 1998). “010 and RCW 74.15.010(2). Recent legislation reiterates preservation of the family and reunification of a dependent child with his or her parents are goals for dependent children, where feasible.”
Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 74.15.010(5) — 3 cases
Sheikh v. Choe, 128 P.3d 574 (Wash. 2006). “010 declares that "[i]t is the intent of the legislature that ... protective services shall be made available in an effort .”
Aba Sheikh v. Choe, 156 Wash. 2d 441 (Wash. 2006). “010 declares that “[i]t is the intent of the legislature that.”
In re the Dependency of A.N., 973 P.2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Rather, the term is defined in the Family Reconciliation Act (FRA) as “a crisis residential center, or portion thereof, that has locking doors, locking windows, or a secured perimeter, designed and operated to prevent a child from leaving without permission of the facility staff.”
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.