Washington Code 11.90.220 – Appointing a guardian or issuing a protective order
Current as of: 2023 | Check for updates
|
Other versions
A court of this state has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or issue a protective order for a respondent if:
Terms Used In Washington Code 11.90.220
- Guardian: A person legally empowered and charged with the duty of taking care of and managing the property of another person who because of age, intellect, or health, is incapable of managing his (her) own affairs.
- Issue: means all the lineal descendants of an individual. See Washington Code 11.02.005
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
- person: may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited liability company, as well as an individual. See Washington Code 1.16.080
(1) This state is the respondent’s home state;
(2) On the date the petition is filed, this state is a significant-connection state and:
(a) The respondent does not have a home state or a court of the respondent’s home state has declined to exercise jurisdiction because this state is a more appropriate forum; or
(b) The respondent has a home state, a petition for an appointment or order is not pending in a court of that state or another significant-connection state, and, before the court makes the appointment or issues the order:
(i) A petition for an appointment or order is not filed in the respondent’s home state;
(ii) An objection to the court’s jurisdiction is not filed by a person required to be notified of the proceeding; and
(iii) The court in this state concludes that it is an appropriate forum under the factors set forth in RCW 11.90.250;
(3) This state does not have jurisdiction under either subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the respondent’s home state and all significant-connection states have declined to exercise jurisdiction because this state is the more appropriate forum, and jurisdiction in this state is consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States; or
(4) The requirements for special jurisdiction under RCW 11.90.230 are met.
[ 2009 c 81 § 9.]
NOTES:
Effective date—2009 c 81: See note following RCW 11.90.010.