Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.42
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.42.005 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that there is a significant need to protect children and dependent persons, including frail elder and vulnerable adults, from abuse and neglect by their parents, by persons entrusted with their physical custody, or by persons employed to provide them with the basic necessities of life. The legislature further finds that such abuse and neglect often takes the forms of either withholding from them the basic necessities of life, including food, water, shelter, clothing, and health care, or abandoning them, or both. Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature that criminal penalties be imposed on those guilty of such abuse or neglect. It is the intent of the legislature that a person who, in good faith, is furnished Christian Science treatment by a duly accredited Christian Science practitioner in lieu of medical care is not considered deprived of medically necessary health care or abandoned. Prosecutions under this chapter shall be consistent with the rules of evidence, including hearsay, under law.
[ 1997 c 392 s 507.]

Notes:

Short title—Findings—Construction—Conflict with federal requirements—Part headings and captions not law—1997 c 392: See notes following RCW 74.39A.009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2004–2016 · leading case: State v. Cooper, 128 P.3d 1234 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cooper, 128 P.3d 1234 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “110. Therefore, Cooper argues that the definition of "person" in the child endangerment statute should be restricted to parents, custodians, or caregivers.”
State v. Cooper, 156 Wash. 2d 475 (Wash. 2006). “005 (finding “there is a significant need to protect children and dependent persons, including frail elder and vulnerable adults, from abuse and neglect by their parents, by persons entrusted with their physical custody, or by persons employed to provide them with the basic…”
State v. Mitchell, 169 Wash. 2d 437 (Wash. 2010). “005, which reads in relevant part: The legislature finds that there is a significant need to protect children and dependent persons, including frail elder and vulnerable adults, from abuse and neglect by their parents, by persons entrusted with their physical custody, or by…”
State v. Mitchell, 237 P.3d 282 (Wash. 2010). “The legislature further finds that such abuse and neglect often takes the forms of either withholding from them the basic necessities of life, including food, water, shelter, clothing, and health care, or abandoning them, or both.”
State v. McGary, 93 P.3d 941 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “42 RCW, provides in part: The legislature finds that there is a significant need to protect children and dependent persons, including frail elder and vulnerable adults, from abuse and neglect by their parents, by persons entrusted with their physical custody, or by persons…”
State v. McGary, 122 Wash. App. 308 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 9A.42.005, the codified statement of legislative intent for chapter 9A.”
State v. Mitchell, 149 Wash. App. 716 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 9A.42.005 (in part). “Criminal mistreatment in the first degree” is defined as follows: A parent of a child, the person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or dependent person, a person who has assumed the responsibility to provide to a dependent person the basic…”
State v. Mitchell, 205 P.3d 920 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 9A.42.005, in part. Criminal mistreatment in the first degree is defined as follows: A parent of a child, the person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or dependent person, a person who has assumed the responsibility to provide to a dependent person the basic…”
State of Washington v. Michelle K. Staats (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 9A.42.005. The Staats argue that the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions for criminal mistreatment in the second degree because the evidence does not establish they withheld food from ELS.”
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.