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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.42.100 (2026)

Endangerment with a controlled substance

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A person is guilty of the crime of endangerment with a controlled substance if the person knowingly or intentionally permits a dependent child or dependent adult to be exposed to, ingest, inhale, or have contact with methamphetamine or ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or anhydrous ammonia, including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, that are being used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers. Endangerment with a controlled substance is a class B felony.
[ 2005 c 218 s 4; 2002 c 229 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—2002 c 229: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [March 28, 2002]." [ 2002 c 229 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2023 · 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 22× “RCW 9A.42.100, the child endangerment statute, makes it a crime for a person to knowingly or intentionally expose a dependent child to methamphetamine.”
State v. Cooper, 156 Wash. 2d 475 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 19× “RCW 9A.42.100, the child endangerment statute, makes it a crime for a person to knowingly or intentionally expose a dependent child to methamphetamine.”
Raven v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 306 P.3d 920 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “r mental health of a vulnerable adult, or that fails to avoid or prevent physical or mental harm or pain to a vulnerable adult; or (b) an act or omission that demonstrates a serious disregard of consequences of such a magnitude as to constitute a clear and present danger to the…”
State v. Gaworski, 156 P.3d 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “He contends the enhancement merges with his convictions for child endangerment under RCW 9A.42.100. Again, the merger doctrine does not apply.”
State v. Link, 136 Wash. App. 685 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “401(a)(l)(ii) (1998) 9 and endangerment with a controlled substance in violation of former RCW 9A.42.100 (2002). The State further alleged that the manufacturing was done in the presence of a minor, contrary to RCW 9.”
Ashley Brown v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., CPS, 360 P.3d 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “in pertinent part: “Negligent treatment or maltreatment” means an act or a failure to act, or the cumulative effects of a pattern of conduct, behavior, or inaction, that evidences a serious disregard of con *589 sequences of such magnitude as to constitute a clear and present…”
State v. Link, 150 P.3d 610 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “401(a)(1)(ii) (1998) [9] and endangerment with a controlled substance in violation of former RCW 9A.42.100 (2002). The State further alleged that the manufacturing was done in the presence of a minor, contrary to RCW 9.”
Kim v. Lakeside Adult Fam. Home, 345 P.3d 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “that fails to avoid or prevent physical or mental harm or pain to a vulnerable adult; or (b) an act or omission by a person or entity with a duty of care that demonstrates a serious disregard of consequences of such a magnitude as to constitute a clear and present danger to the…”
Jessica L. Wrigley, V State Of Wa Dshs, Etal, 428 P.3d 1279 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “020(16) to include an act or a failure to act, or the cumulative effects of a pattern of conduct, behavior, or inaction, that evidences a serious disregard of consequences of such magnitude as to constitute a clear and present danger to a child's health, welfare, or safety,…”
State v. Gaworski, 156 P.3d 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “He contends the enhancement merges with his convictions for child endangerment under RCW 9A.42.100. Again, the merger doctrine does not apply.”
Raven v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 273 P.3d 1017 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “r mental health of a vulnerable adult, or that fails to avoid or prevent physical or mental harm or pain to a vulnerable adult; or (b) an act or omission that demonstrates a serious disregard of consequences of such a magnitude as to constitute a clear and present danger to the…”
Raven v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 167 Wash. App. 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “r mental health of a vulnerable adult, or that fails to avoid or prevent physical or mental harm or pain to a vulnerable adult; or (b) an act or omission that demonstrates a serious disregard of consequences of such a magnitude as to constitute a clear and present danger to the…”
Show all 22 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.