Skip to main content
Washington Guardianship
Support GuideWashington19 min read

Washington Guardianship

Washington guardianship runs on chapter 11.130 RCW. A guardian decides personal matters, a conservator decides money, and less restrictive options come first.

By Settled Editorial

Washington guardianship runs on chapter 11.130 RCW, the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act. A guardian decides personal matters and a conservator decides money. For an adult, the superior court can appoint either one only on clear and convincing evidence, and only after finding that nothing less restrictive would meet the need.

This page explains what the chapter says: the two roles, the standards for an adult and for a minor, the alternatives the court has to rule out first, the short clocks on emergency appointments, and what an order has to spell out. Sign a power of attorney instead and the health care document while capacity holds, because both doors close on the day it goes. This is general information, not legal advice. Confirm anything time sensitive with the superior court handling the case or a licensed Washington attorney.

Chapter 11.130 RCW Replaced Washington's Old Guardianship Law

Washington rebuilt this subject from the ground up. Chapters 11.88 and 11.92 RCW, the chapters most older articles still cite, are repealed. The Washington State Legislature's own site redirects both to its disposition page, so a citation to RCW 11.88 no longer resolves to a statute at all.

RCW 11.130.910 sets the reach of the replacement. The chapter applies to a proceeding for appointment of a guardian or conservator, or for a protective arrangement instead of one, commenced after January 1, 2022. It also applies to a guardianship, conservatorship, or protective arrangement already in existence on January 1, 2022, unless the court finds that applying a particular provision would substantially interfere with the effective conduct of the proceeding or prejudice the rights of a party, in which case the older law governs that piece.

Read the date on anything you find. A Washington guardianship article written before 2022 describes a system that no longer exists.

Not sure which documents you need?

The free estate planning assessment builds a short document list for your situation.

Take the free estate planning assessment

A Guardian Handles the Person and a Conservator Handles the Property

RCW 11.130.010 splits the two jobs by subject matter. Subsection (11) defines a guardian as a person the court appoints to make decisions about an individual's personal affairs. Subsection (5) defines a conservator as a person the court appoints to make decisions about the property or financial affairs of an individual. Both terms include a co-appointee, and a guardian ad litem is expressly not a guardian.

Each role comes in two sizes. A full guardianship grants every power available under the chapter, and a full conservatorship does the same on the money side, under subsections (9) and (10). A limited guardianship grants less than all powers or otherwise restricts them, and a limited conservatorship grants less than all powers, reaches only certain property, or is otherwise narrowed, under subsections (17) and (18).

The powers a guardian for an adult may exercise unless the order says otherwise are listed in RCW 11.130.330. They cover receiving benefits as a representative payee, establishing where the adult lives, consenting to care or treatment, and receiving the adult's health care information. Adoption consent, and consent to or opposition to a marriage or a dissolution, take a specific court order under subsections (2) and (3).

Washington Starts by Presuming Capacity

RCW 11.130.037 is one sentence long: for the purposes of the chapter, an adult is presumed to have legal capacity. Everything else in the adult track is the work of overcoming that presumption.

RCW 11.130.265(1)(a) sets the test. The court may appoint a guardian for an adult only if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, all three of the following. The respondent lacks the ability to meet essential requirements for physical health, safety, or self-care because the respondent cannot receive and evaluate information or make and communicate decisions, even with appropriate supportive services, technological assistance, or supported decision making. Appointment is necessary to prevent significant risk of harm to the respondent's physical health, safety, or self-care. And the respondent's identified needs cannot be met by a protective arrangement instead of guardianship or another less restrictive alternative.

Two limits in the same section matter as much as the test. Subsection (2) tells the court to grant only the powers the demonstrated needs require, and forbids a full guardianship where a limited guardianship, a protective arrangement, or another less restrictive alternative would meet the need. Subsection (3) says the decision is legal, not medical, has to rest on demonstrated management insufficiencies over time, and cannot rest on age, eccentricity, poverty, or a medical diagnosis standing alone.

Conservatorship Uses Two Standards, One for Adults and One for Minors

RCW 11.130.360 splits by age. For an adult, subsection (2) uses clear and convincing evidence of three things: the adult cannot manage property or financial affairs because of a limitation in receiving and evaluating information or making and communicating decisions, even with supportive services, technological assistance, or supported decision making, or because the adult is missing, detained, or unable to return to the United States; appointment is necessary to avoid harm or dissipation, or to obtain funds the adult or a dependent needs; and the need cannot be met by a protective arrangement or another less restrictive alternative.

For a minor, subsection (1) uses a preponderance of the evidence and asks whether appointment serves the minor's best interest, giving weight to a parent's recommendation, where the minor owns property needing management, has financial affairs at risk because of age, or needs funds obtained or provided. Subsection (5) closes a gap that trips people up: an adult living in a long-term care facility or under an involuntary commitment order is not "missing or detained" for this purpose.

The Court Has to Rule Out the Lesser Options First

The Uniform Act is built around alternatives, and Washington wrote them into the definitions. RCW 11.130.010(15) defines a less restrictive alternative as an approach to meeting an individual's needs that restricts fewer rights than a guardianship or conservatorship would, and names four: supported decision making, appropriate technological assistance, appointment of a representative payee, and appointment of an agent by the individual, including under a power of attorney for health care or for finances.

Washington also gives the court a middle setting. Instead of appointing anyone, the court can enter a protective arrangement. RCW 11.130.585 lets it authorize or direct a single transaction the adult's health, safety, or care requires, order or supervise visitation, or restrict access by a person who puts the adult at serious risk. RCW 11.130.590 does the property version, and its list runs from establishing benefit eligibility through a sale, mortgage, or lease, an annuity purchase, a trust addition, and settlement of a claim. The findings track the matching appointment section: RCW 11.130.585 asks for the inability finding and the no-lesser-alternative finding on clear and convincing evidence, RCW 11.130.590(1) adds a necessity finding for an adult, and RCW 11.130.590(2) drops to a preponderance and the best interest test for a minor.

Existing documents constrain the guardian. Under RCW 11.130.335(1) a guardian for an adult has no power to revoke or amend a power of attorney the adult signed. While a health care power of attorney is in effect, the agent's health care decision takes precedence over the guardian's unless a court orders otherwise, and the guardian has to cooperate with the agent as far as feasible. The finance version of the rule reads the same way. Only the court can revoke or amend the document. On the health care side that rule sits against a separate Washington priority list that ranks an appointed guardian first, and the two are not fully reconciled, which the Washington health care directive guide sets out side by side. That is the practical argument for finishing the rest of the Washington document set early.

Supported Decision Making Is a Washington Statute, Not an Informal Practice

RCW 11.130.700 through 11.130.755 create a signed agreement between an adult with a disability and one or more supporters. RCW 11.130.700(2) names the instrument, and RCW 11.130.720 gives a supporter exactly the authority the agreement grants and nothing more.

Execution is formal. RCW 11.130.740 requires the agreement to be in writing, dated, and signed voluntarily without coercion or undue influence by both the adult and the supporter, before either two subscribing witnesses who are at least eighteen or a notary public. A supporter, a supporter's employee or agent, a paid service provider, and anyone who does not understand how the adult communicates are all disqualified as witnesses, with an exception when someone who does understand assists during signing.

RCW 11.130.725 keeps the exit easy. The agreement runs until either party ends it or its own terms expire, and it terminates automatically if the Department of Social and Health Services finds the supporter abused, neglected, or exploited the adult, or the supporter is found criminally liable for that conduct. The adult can end it orally, in writing, through an assistive technology device, or by any other act showing intent to terminate.

Minor Guardianship Turns on the Parents

RCW 11.130.185 uses a different frame. A person becomes a guardian for a minor only by court appointment, and the court may appoint one for a minor who does not already have a guardian if the appointment serves the minor's best interest and one of three things is true: each parent consents after being fully informed of the nature and consequences of guardianship; all parental rights have been terminated; or clear and convincing evidence shows no parent is willing or able to exercise parenting functions as defined in RCW 26.09.004.

The chapter also carries a standby guardian for a minor at RCW 11.130.220 and an emergency guardian for a minor at RCW 11.130.225, so the minor track has three doors rather than one.

Emergency and Temporary Appointments Run on Sixty-Day Clocks

RCW 11.130.320 governs the emergency guardian for an adult. Subsection (4) requires specific findings on clear and convincing evidence that an emergency exists such that the appointment is likely to prevent substantial and irreparable harm, that the emergency need cannot be met by a protective arrangement or another less restrictive alternative, that no one else has authority and willingness to act, and that there is reason to believe a basis under RCW 11.130.265 exists.

The procedure is fast but not silent. Subsection (9) tells the court to appoint an attorney for the respondent immediately on filing, and bars an order unless the respondent, that attorney, and the court visitor got at least fourteen days' notice of the hearing. Subsection (10) allows an appointment without notice only on an affidavit or testimony that the adult will be substantially harmed before a hearing can be held, and then requires notice within forty-eight hours and a hearing on the appointment within five days. Subsection (8) caps the authority at sixty days, extendable once by no more than sixty more.

RCW 11.130.225 mirrors those limits for a minor, adds notice to the minor at age twelve or older, and states in subsection (5) that an emergency appointment is not a determination that a basis for a full appointment exists. RCW 11.130.430 caps an emergency conservator at the same sixty days plus one extension. RCW 11.130.130 covers a different problem: when a removal proceeding is pending or a sitting fiduciary is not doing the job, the court may appoint a temporary substitute for up to six months, and the existing appointee's authority is suspended while the substitute serves.

Who May Serve, and Who May Not

RCW 11.130.305 ranks candidates for guardian of an adult: a guardian already acting in another jurisdiction, then a person the respondent nominated, including in a power of attorney, then an agent under a health care power of attorney, then a spouse or domestic partner, then a relative or other individual who has shown special care and concern, then a certified professional guardian or conservator. RCW 11.130.415 sets a parallel order for conservators, with the finance power of attorney taking the nomination slot.

Priority is a starting point. Subsection (2) tells the court to pick the best qualified when two people tie, weighing relationship, skills, the respondent's expressed wishes, shared values and preferences, and likely competence in the role. Subsection (3) lets the court skip a higher-priority person entirely when the respondent's best interest calls for it.

Two bars sit at the end of each list. Under RCW 11.130.305(4) a paid service provider, an employee of one, or that employee's spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child may not serve as guardian unless related to the respondent by blood, marriage, or adoption, or unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is the best qualified available and the appointment serves the respondent's best interest. Under RCW 11.130.305(5) an owner, operator, or employee of a long-term care facility where the respondent receives care may not serve unless related to the respondent. RCW 11.130.415(4) and (5) repeat both bars for conservators and phrase the family exception as related by blood or law.

The Respondent Gets an Attorney, a Court Visitor, and an Evaluation

RCW 11.130.285(1)(a) gives the respondent the right to be represented by a willing attorney of their choosing at any stage. Subsection (1)(b) then tells the court it must appoint an attorney for an unrepresented adult respondent, regardless of ability to pay, when the respondent objects to the petition or asks the court visitor for an attorney, or when the court believes the respondent's rights and interests cannot otherwise be adequately protected.

That word changed recently. Chapter 177, Laws of 2026, effective June 11, 2026, struck the old text reading that the court "is not required, but may" appoint and replaced it with "must." Appointment at public expense follows under subsection (1)(c) when the respondent cannot afford an attorney, when the expense would cause substantial hardship, or when the respondent has no practical access to funds. Subsection (1)(e) presumes that less than three weeks between appointment and a final hearing is inadequate time to prepare.

RCW 11.130.280 requires a court visitor on receipt of an adult guardianship petition, sets the hourly rate in the appointment order, and gives the visitor five days to file and serve a statement covering training, ten years of criminal history, rate, prior contact with a party, and any apparent conflict. RCW 11.130.290 requires a professional evaluation by a licensed physician, psychologist, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant the visitor selects, with the report due to the visitor within thirty days of the examination and filed under seal.

The Order Says What the Adult Keeps

RCW 11.130.310 turns the findings into a written record. A guardianship order for an adult has to include a specific finding that clear and convincing evidence established the need cannot be met by a protective arrangement or another less restrictive alternative, and a specific finding that the respondent got proper notice.

Voting and marriage get their own treatment. The order has to state whether the adult keeps each right, and subsection (2) says the adult keeps both unless the order makes the required statement and findings. Removing the vote takes a finding that the adult cannot communicate a specific desire to participate in voting, with or without support. A full guardianship order has to state its basis and explain why a limited guardianship would not meet the adult's functional needs, and a limited order has to list the specific powers granted.

RCW 11.130.335(5) protects contact. An adult under a guardianship, conservatorship, or protective arrangement keeps the right to associate with people of their choosing, and a fiduciary may restrict that only under a court order, a protection order, the community protection program, or a short-fuse safety exception that requires a vulnerable adult protection order petition within fourteen days.

Filing, Fees, and Forms

RCW 11.130.020 puts subject matter jurisdiction in the superior court of each county, with adult cases routed through the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act in chapter 11.90 RCW. RCW 11.130.030 sets venue in the county where the respondent resides for an adult guardianship, where the respondent is present for an emergency, and where the minor resides or is present for a minor case. Find the county superior court before drafting anything.

Chapter 11.130 RCW sets no filing fee of its own. RCW 11.130.170 sets waivers. The court charges no filing fee where the petition alleges the respondent has total assets worth less than three thousand dollars, and none for a guardianship or conservatorship filed under Article 2 of the chapter where the proposed guardian is a relative and not a professional guardian or conservator. The attorney general may petition without prepaying, with payment ordered from the estate later or waived for hardship. The county clerk collects whatever remains under the general superior court fee schedule.

Forms are optional. RCW 11.130.640 says use of the forms in Article 6 is optional unless the chapter provides otherwise, and that failing to use them does not prejudice any party. The one that is not optional is the letters of office: RCW 11.130.660 requires letters of guardianship or conservatorship to follow the statutory form or one substantially similar. Washington Courts publishes the whole set under Guardianship, Conservatorship, or Other Protective Arrangement. Our Washington guardianship overview gathers the same filing steps, the GDN form set and the county contacts on one page.

Ending or Narrowing a Guardianship

RCW 11.130.355 keeps the door open. The adult, the guardian, or a person interested in the adult's welfare may petition to terminate on the ground that a basis under RCW 11.130.265 no longer exists, that termination serves the adult's best interest, or for other good cause, or to modify where the protection granted no longer fits.

The burden then flips. Subsection (4) says that on presentation of prima facie evidence for termination, the court shall order termination unless someone proves a basis for appointment still exists. Subsection (5) tells the court to modify the powers whenever they have become excessive or inadequate. Subsection (7) gives an adult seeking termination or modification the right to choose an attorney, with reasonable fees awarded under RCW 11.130.100.

A guardianship in Washington is meant to be the last option and the smallest one that works. If the estate side of the picture is what brought you here, the Washington probate guide covers what happens after a death rather than during a life.

Sources:

It is not legal advice.

Prefer to talk it through? Connect with an estate-planning attorney

Settled Estate is not a law firm and does not give legal advice.

Information current as of August 8, 2026

Settled Estate is not a law firm, and this content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Probate laws and procedures in Washington can change. Consult with a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation. Full disclaimer.

All Washington guides← Back to all articles