JUVENILE COURTS—COURT CLERK—RECORDS—STATUTES—Statutory obligation to provide the Office of Public Defense and the Office of Civil Legal Aid with access to court records.

Attorney General

RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) require court clerks to provide the Office of Public Defense (OPD) and the Office of Civil Legal Aid (OCLA) access to court records.

Existing statutes and court rules do not explicitly address whether court clerks may require OPD and OCLA to file notices of appearance as a precondition to records access under RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14), but such a requirement would conflict with the legislative intent of those statutes and the agencies' statutory prohibition from providing direct client representation.

February 25, 2026

Larry Jefferson, Director Washington State Office of Public Defense PO Box 40957 Olympia, WA 98504 Sara Robbins, Director Office of Civil Legal Aid 1112 Quince Street SE MS-41183 Olympia, WA 98504

Cite As: AGO 2026 No. 1

Dear Director Jefferson and Director Robbins:

By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on the following questions:

1. Does RCW 13.50.010 require court clerks to provide the Office of Public Defense and the Office of Civil Legal Aid access to records in dependency and termination cases?

2. Does RCW 13.50.010 permit court clerks to require staff from the Office of Public Defense and Office of Civil Legal Aid to file a notice of appearance before obtaining these records?

[original page 1]

BRIEF ANSWERS

1. Likely yes. Although RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) directs "the court" to release records to the Office of Public Defense (OPD) and the Office of Civil Legal Aid (OCLA), the statutory context suggests that the Legislature intended clerks, as the custodians of court records, to release relevant records to OPD and OCLA. This interpretation of RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) does not conflict with Title 13's narrow definition of "court," referring to juvenile judges and commissioners, because the Legislature expressly anticipated that the term "court" might, where qualified, include other entities.

2. Likely not. RCW 13.50.010 does not specify a particular mechanism for courts to provide the records. Instead, the Legislature has instructed juvenile courts to implement procedures to facilitate access to their records. We conclude that, absent further direction from the Legislature or the Supreme Court, juvenile courts have discretion in establishing procedures for records access. However, the statutory context and history indicate that the Legislature intended courts to provide OPD and OCLA with expeditious records access without undue administrative burden. Existing statutes and court rules do not explicitly address whether court clerks may require OPD and OCLA to file notices of appearance as a precondition to records access under RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14), but such a requirement would conflict with the legislative intent of those statutes and the agencies' statutory prohibition from providing direct client representation.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

OPD and OCLA are independent agencies of the judicial branch. RCW 2.70.005; RCW 2.53.020(1). Among other duties, OPD administers programs to provide State-funded appointed counsel to indigent parents in dependency and termination of parental rights cases, RCW 2.70.020(1)(c), while OCLA oversees the provision of State-funded counsel to children during such proceedings in most counties. RCW 13.34.212(3)(c) (providing a schedule for appointment of attorneys for children in dependency proceedings on a county-by-county basis); see RCW 2.53.025; .045(2).

As both OPD and OCLA are statutorily prohibited from providing direct client representation (RCW 2.70.023(1); RCW 2.53.020(4)), both agencies manage and monitor outside legal-aid providers. The Legislature requires OPD to establish "procedures, standards, and guidelines" for its program areas and to "[p]rovide oversight and technical assistance to ensure the effective delivery of services[.]" RCW 2.70.020(6)-(7). In compliance with this directive, OPD sets caseload limits, implements standards of practice, and provides case support and resources for its program attorneys. See Wash. State Office of Public Defense, Parents Representation Program Standards for Attorneys 1 (updated 2018), https://opd.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/00569-2018_UpdatedStanda…. The Legislature similarly requires OCLA to verify that its program attorneys "meet the standards of practice, caseload limits, and training guidelines[.]" RCW 2.53.045(3); see also, RCW 13.34.212(1)(c).

[original page 2]

To facilitate OPD's and OCLA's administrative oversight functions, the Legislature enacted specific directives for courts to release relevant records to each agency. RCW 13.50.010(13) grants OPD records access, stating:

The court shall release to the Washington state office of public defense records needed to implement the agency's oversight, technical assistance, and other functions as required by RCW 2.70.020. Access to the records used as a basis for oversight, technical assistance, or other agency functions is restricted to the Washington state office of public defense. The Washington state office of public defense shall maintain the confidentiality of all confidential information included in the records.

RCW 13.50.010(14) permits OCLA records access, stating:

The court shall release to the Washington state office of civil legal aid records needed to implement the agency's oversight, technical assistance, and other functions as required by RCW 2.53.045. Access to the records used as a basis for oversight, technical assistance, or other agency functions is restricted to the Washington state office of civil legal aid. The Washington state office of civil legal aid shall maintain the confidentiality of all confidential information included in the records, and shall, as soon as possible, destroy any retained notes or records obtained under this section that are not necessary for its functions related to RCW 2.53.045.

In your joint request for legal guidance, you note that OPD and OCLA staff have experienced "significant challenges" in accessing dependency and termination of parental rights court records. Some court clerks have declined to provide access to dependency and termination of parental rights case files on the basis that RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) state that "[t]he court" shall release records, rather than directing "court clerks" or "the clerk" to release records. You also report that some clerks have requested that OPD and OCLA attorneys file a notice of appearance in the underlying proceedings to access case files, which could conflict with the Legislature's prohibition on OPD and OCLA directly representing clients. RCW 2.70.023(1); RCW 2.53.020(4). You further indicate that inconsistent records access impedes your agencies from providing timely oversight and technical assistance to contracted attorneys.

ANALYSIS

1. RCW 13.50.010 requires court clerks to provide the Office of Public Defense and the Office of Civil Legal Aid access to records in dependency and termination cases.

Your request first requires us to determine whether court clerks have a legal obligation to provide records to OPD and OCLA that are needed to implement the agencies' oversight, technical assistance, and other statutory functions. This is a question of statutory interpretation.

[original page 3]

The goal of statutory interpretation is to determine legislative intent. Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756, 762, 317 P.3d 1003 (2014). To assess legislative intent, we first look to the "plain language" of a statute, "'considering the text of the provision in question, the context of the statute in which the provision is found, related provisions, amendments to the provision, and the statutory scheme as a whole.'" Associated Gen. Contractors of Wash. v. State, 2 Wn.3d 846, 855, 544 P.3d 486 (2024) (quoting Ass'n of Wash. Spirits & Wine Distribs. v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd., 182 Wn.2d 342, 350, 340 P.3d 849 (2015)).

As noted above, the relevant statutes provide that "[t]he court shall release . . . records[.]" RCW 13.50.010(13), (14). In Washington statutes, the phrase "the court" is used in a range of ways, sometimes referring specifically to a judge, while sometimes referring more broadly to the judicial institution inclusive of other court staff.

In some statutes, the Legislature distinguishes between a judicial officer and court staff when imposing directives. In RCW 13.34.065 for instance, the Legislature directs "the court"-a judge-to hold shelter care hearings within 72 hours of the State removing a child from a home, what information to provide to caregivers, when to appoint counsel, and other procedures. In the same statute, the Legislature separately requires "the clerk of the court" to receive requests to continue an initial shelter care hearing, notify parties of the proceedings, and disclose to unrepresented parents how to obtain counsel. RCW 13.34.065(1)(b). But in other statutes, the Legislature refers to "the court" as a judicial institution, issuing directives without assigning a task to a particular court official. See RCW 2.36.100(1) (permitting "the court" to excuse individuals from jury service); State v. Rice, 120 Wn.2d 549, 561, 844 P.2d 416, (1993) (concluding that as the Legislature did not express a preference for who would excuse jurors in RCW 2.36.100, that task could be performed by clerks).

At other times, the Legislature may use "the court" generally but provide contextual clues as to which court staff the Legislature intended to perform a duty. RCW 11.130.040(1)-(2) for instance, generically directs "[t]he court" to "issue letters" of guardianship and conservatorship to individuals. But in a later provision, the Legislature instructs "[t]he [court] clerk" as to the proper format to use when they issue guardianship or conservatorship letters. RCW 11.130.040(6).

To determine what "the court" in RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) means, we look at the statutory scheme as a whole. Title 13 provides a statutory definition of "court," which states that for purposes of Title 13, "'[c]ourt' when used without further qualification means the juvenile court judge(s) or commissioner(s)[.]" On first glance, this definition, when applied to RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14), could suggest that only a juvenile court judge or commissioner could release, or direct the release of, records needed by OPD and OCLA. But on closer inspection, by electing to use the contingent phrase, "when used without further qualification," the Legislature expressly acknowledged that the term "court," might, in some provisions, not refer to judges or

[original page 4]

commissioners. Given the multiple possible meanings of "court," it is unsurprising that the Legislature has applied the same phrase "when used without further qualification" to the definition of "court" in other titles, explaining in those statutes that the Legislature's chosen definition applies "[u]nless the context clearly requires otherwise[.]" See RCW 2.36.010(2); RCW 3.72.005(1).

The context of RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) demonstrates that the Legislature did not intend "[t]he court shall release . . . records" to refer solely to judges and commissioners. In these provisions, the Legislature issued a nondiscretionary ("[t]he court shall release") directive for the release of court records. Elsewhere, the Legislature has explicitly designated court clerks, not judges or commissioners, as the custodians of court records. RCW 2.32.050(3). Clerks perform a wide breadth of court functions, but many of them are tethered to court records. See RCW 2.32.050 (The Legislature has directed clerks to record the proceedings of the court; to keep the records, files, and other books and papers appertaining to the court; to file all papers delivered to them; to keep the minutes of the proceedings of the court; to enter its orders, judgments, and decrees; and to publish notice of the procedures for inspection of the public records of the court, among other things.). Ensuring records access is a special duty shared between the court as an entity and court clerks. SeeKing County v. Sorensen, 200 Wn.2d 252, 259-60, 516 P.3d 388 (2022) (interpreting General Rule 31, "access to court records," to impose a duty on courts and court clerks rather than individual judges). Though the Legislature did not refer to court clerks by name in RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14), the context provides clarity that "[t]he court shall release . . . records" created an obligation for court clerks.

As explained in more detail below, the Legislature intended for these records to be released expeditiously to ensure OPD and OCLA could provide oversight and technical assistance. Interpreting RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) to impose an obligation on judges or commissioners to release records-records under the control of someone else within the court-would ultimately frustrate the intent of the Legislature. And such an interpretation is unnecessary where RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) can be read to provide an implicit "qualification" from RCW 13.04.011(2)'s narrow definition of "court." Under this interpretation, RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) direct court clerks, as the custodians of records for the court, to release applicable materials to OPD and OCLA staff. Court clerks must comply with statutory directives. RCW 2.32.050(8).

[original page 5]

2. RCW 13.50.010 likely prohibits court clerks from requiring staff from the Office of Public Defense and Office of Civil Legal Aid to file a notice of appearance before obtaining records.

Your request next asks whether court clerks may require agency staff to first file a notice of appearance before obtaining relevant records. Again, this is a question of statutory interpretation.

Chapter 13.50 RCW requires that juvenile courts "implement procedures consistent with the provisions of this chapter to facilitate inquiries concerning records." RCW 13.50.010(4). The chapter does not specify the process courts must implement in responding to a records request from OPD or OCLA, though, as with other procedures, each court's processes may vary. See In re Welfare of O.C., 27 Wn. App. 2d 671, 694, 533 P.3d 159 (2023) (providing that the juvenile court "is in the best position to adopt procedures related to their own records"). But the context of RCW 13.50.010 and the legislative history both indicate that the Legislature intended for OPD and OCLA to easily obtain these records without undue administrative obstacles.

Here again, the statutory context informs our interpretation of RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14). Associated Gen. Contractors of Wash. v. State, 2 Wn.3d at 855. In chapter 13.50 RCW, the Legislature set forth the procedures for the retention and release of records by juvenile justice or care agencies, which includes courts. See RCW 13.50.010(1)(c) (providing that "juvenile justice or care agency" includes, among other entities, courts). RCW 13.50.010 provides specific directives for the release of juvenile records. The only formal records request procedure described in RCW 13.50.010 is in subsections (5), (6), and (7). RCW 13.50.010(5) provides that any person who has been denied access to juvenile justice or care agency records where that person has reasonable cause to believe information concerning them is in the records may make a motion to the court for an order authorizing them to inspect the record. RCW 13.50.010(6) allows a juvenile, their parent, or a person who has reasonable cause to believe information concerning them is in a juvenile justice or agency record to file a motion challenging the accuracy of the information contained in the record. The movant, under both subsections (5) and (6), must provide notice to relevant parties. RCW 13.50.010(7). In those subsections, the Legislature expressly requires individuals to file a motion to the court and provide notice to relevant parties. RCW 13.50.010(5)-(7). Another provision specifies that the court may provide records access to certain entities for research purposes, wherein individuals must provide a "notarized statement to the court" promising the records will remain confidential. RCW 13.50.010(8).

In contrast to those provisions, RCW 13.50.010's subsections related to OPD and OCLA do not require a motion, notarized statement, or similar type of procedure. RCW 13.50.010(13), (14). The lack of textual evidence that similar procedures are necessary for OPD and OCLA to access court records pursuant to RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14)-particularly when the Legislature imposed such procedures elsewhere in the same statute-suggests the Legislature did not intend these types of administrative burdens to apply to OPD and OCLA. See Perez-Crisantos v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 187 Wn.2d 669, 680, 389 P.3d 476 (2017) ("[W]here the legislature

[original page 6]

includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another, the exclusion is presumed intentional."). And notably, whereas the provisions of RCW 13.50.010 that impose motion or notarized statement procedures permit the court discretion to withhold records, RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) instead mandate that "[t]he court shall" release permissible records to OPD and OCLA without qualification. Because the statute does not permit court discretion to withhold permissible records from OPD and OCLA, any undue administrative burdens would undermine legislative intent.

The legislative history also provides evidence that the Legislature intended OPD and OCLA to have expeditious access to court records. See Associated Gen. Contractors of Washington v. State, 2 Wn.3d at 855 (noting that prior amendments to the law are relevant to determining its meaning). The Legislature amended chapter 13.50.010 to add RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) in 2009 and 2015 to ensure that both OPD and OCLA, respectively, have access to certain records for their programs. See Laws of 2015, ch. 262, § 1(14); Laws of 2009, ch. 440, § 1(12). Prior to the addition of those provisions, former RCW 13.50.010(8) (2008) provided the procedure for organizations-including OPD and OCLA-to access juvenile records. It stated in part:

The court may also permit inspection by or release to individuals or agencies . . . engaged in legitimate research for educational, scientific, or public purposes. The court may also permit inspection of, or release of information from, records which have been sealed pursuant to RCW 13.50.050(11). . . . Access to records or information for research purposes shall be permitted only if the anonymity of all persons mentioned in the records or information will be preserved. Each person granted permission to inspect juvenile justice or care agency records for research purposes shall present a notarized statement to the court stating that the names of juveniles and parents will remain confidential.

Laws of 1998, ch. 269, § 4. The legislature concluded that this level of previous access-subject to the discretion of the court ("may permit") and requiring a notarized statement-was insufficient for OPD and OCLA to perform their statutory oversight obligations.

In 2009, OPD testified on behalf of House Bill 1238, the bill that would become RCW 13.50.010(13) and permit OPD better access to court records. An OPD representative testified: "What this bill would do is ensure that we have ongoing access to the court records in juvenile court where the dependency cases happen so that we can monitor these attorneys and effectively manage their caseloads in accordance with the statute and with the bar association standards." Pub. Hr'g Before the H. Jud. Comm. on H.B. 1238, 61st Leg., Reg Sess. (Wash.

[original page 7]

Jan. 28, 2009), at 1:35:50, video recording by TVW, Washington State's Public Affairs Network, https://tvw.org/video/house-judiciary-committee-2009011070/. OPD's director testified at a corollary hearing before the Senate for Senate Bill 5133, stating:

We are seeking our amendment pursuant to our statute which requires us to provide technical assistance and oversight for our programs. Now we have the ability to ask permission of the courts to access court records, but we have to get a notarized copy of confidentiality and explain the purpose for retrieving a record and it is a big deal that takes a lot of staff time on our part and on the court's part when we ask for records. What we are seeking to do is get things in the nature of case numbers so that we can maintain oversight over our attorneys' caseload size and so we can understand when the courts are closing a case and we can then be sure another one is appointed to the attorneys. So that is why we are seeking this amendment, to make oversight more efficient and cost less staff time.

Pub. Hr'g Before the S. Hum. Servs. & Corr. Comm. on S.B. 5133, 61st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. Jan. 27, 2009), at 8:20 video recording by TVW, Washington State's Public Affairs Network, https://tvw.org/video/senate-human-services-and-corrections-committee-2…;

In 2015, OCLA sought a similar amendment. An OCLA representative testified on behalf of Engrossed Senate Bill 5262:

It's my job as the program manager to monitor the attorneys that are representing these children and to make sure that they are in compliance with the mandatory standards, that is a predicate to payment from the counties for legal representation. Under [RCW] 13.50.010 as the law currently stands, the dependency court files are confidential. This makes my oversight ability very difficult. I can't monitor what attorneys are doing in specific cases. I can't get into court files to see if they are appearing on behalf of their clients, if they are filing motions, if they are filing pleadings. There's all sorts of very useful information that are in the court files. The role OCLA plays in terms of monitoring the children's representation program is identical to that which the [OPD] plays in terms of monitoring parent's representation. . . . What we've proposed is identical to that language. Passage of [S.B.] 5262 will allow me to have access to pleadings that are filed, ensure that the attorneys are attending hearings, and to provide technical assistance to the attorneys as well. To allow for the effective administration of oversight of activities funded under this law I request this committee pass this bill.

Pub. Hr'g Before the S. Hum. Servs., Mental Health & Hous. Comm., on Engrossed S.B. 5262, 64th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. Jan. 26, 2015), at 53:09, video recording by TVW, Washington State's Public Affairs Network, https://tvw.org/video/senate-human-services-mental-health-housing-commi…;

[original page 8]

We also note that OCLA successfully opposed an amendment that would have required it to designate a single custodian to receive records, testifying in part: "[OCLA is] a small agency . . . and we need the ability to be able to share responsibilities[.] . . . The objective for our oversight ability is to just go to the courthouses [and] review the records[.]" Pub. Hr'g Before the H. Jud. Comm. on Engrossed S.B. 5262 (Wash. Mar. 24, 2015), at 1:28:12, video recording by TVW, Washington State's Public Affairs Network, https://tvw.org/video/house-judiciary-committee-2015031267/. While a rejected bill amendment is rarely useful in discerning legislative intent, the testimony of OCLA in support of the measure as enacted supports the conclusion that the law was intended to impose minimal hurdles to access.

In sum, the legislative history supports the conclusion that the Legislature enacted RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) to offer these agencies more efficient access to court records than was previously provided by former RCW 13.50.010(8) (2008). Following OPD's 2009 request, the Legislature removed the formal obstacle of having representatives provide notarized documents to the court, ensuring that the agency could quickly obtain information on an ongoing basis to comply with its oversight responsibilities. Laws of 2015, ch. 262, § 1(14); Laws of 2009, ch. 440, § 1(12). Prior to this provision of access, testimony indicated that it was difficult for agencies to keep up with the daily details in hundreds of cases needed for oversight, technical assistance, and other agency functions. The Legislature enacted RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) knowing that permitting OPD and OCLA access to continually updating court records would spare agency staff time and save court resources. Consistent with OCLA's testimony in support of the bill as enacted, the Legislature endorsed the agency's desired outcome for RCW 13.50.010(14), that any agency representative could "just go to the courthouse [and] review the records[.]" See Pub. Hr'g Before the H. Jud. Comm. Hr'g on ESB 5262, at 1:28:12.

Undoubtedly, courts must determine their own procedures to ensure OPD's and OCLA's access to court records. Without additional clarification from the Legislature or the Washington Supreme Court, local court procedures may vary across the state. What specific procedures courts may require is a difficult question to address without individual facts regarding procedures that have been required, why, and the burdens they impose. But according to the plain language of RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14), along with the statutory scheme and legislative history, courts should adopt procedures for the release of permissible records to OPD and OCLA with minimal administrative burden.

Your request specifically asks us to determine if clerks can require OPD and OCLA staff to first file a notice of appearance before obtaining access to records. We conclude that the answer is likely no. The plain language of the statute, the statutory context, and the legislative history provide no support for the imposition of a requirement for OPD and OCLA to file notices of appearance in individual dependency and termination cases as a precondition to records access.

[original page 9]

First, there does not appear to be any statute or court rule that currently requires OPD and OCLA to file notices of appearance as a precondition to records access.

Second, such a procedure would arguably conflict with the legislative intent of RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14), as discussed above, particularly as the statutory scheme suggests that the Legislature intended any procedure to be less burdensome to the agencies than filing a notarized statement. Filing a notice of appearance in individual cases imposes an extra-statutory step that expends agency resources and could delay access to records. Your agencies have expressly identified this procedure as a "significant challenge" to accessing court records that hinders OPD's and OCLA's ability to provide timely oversight and technical assistance. Filing a notice of appearance appears comparable to filing a notarized statement, which the Legislature seemingly found to impose too high of a burden to OPD and OCLA for records access.

Third, both OPD and OCLA are statutorily prohibited from providing direct client representation (RCW 2.70.023(1); RCW 2.53.020(4)), and appearing in individual dependency and termination matters seems contrary to that limitation. Under Civil Rule 70.1, attorneys are authorized to "appear for a party" by serving a notice of appearance, and may also file and serve a limited appearance "for a party" that is "limited to one or more individual proceedings in the action." CR 70.1(a), (b). The Legislature notably did not condition records access on OPD's and OCLA's position as a party in individual child welfare cases (and indeed, OPD and OCLA are not necessary or customary parties to such cases), nor does the statute suggest that records access would require a "proceeding" in a child welfare action.

We recognize this could be a more difficult question if we were faced with a court rule that arguably conflicted with a statutory mandate. The responsibility over the administrative aspects of court-related functions is shared between two co-equal branches of government: the judiciary and the legislature. See Wash. State Council of Cnty. & City Emps., Council 2, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Loc. 87 v. Hahn, 151 Wn.2d 163, 168, 86 P.3d 774 (2004). Here, however, we have not been asked to address any actual or potential conflict between a court rule and a statute.

CONCLUSION

The Legislature enacted RCW 13.50.010(13) and (14) to create special records access for OPD and OCLA. We read these statutes to require court clerks to provide OPD and OCLA staff with expeditious access to these records. But the Legislature did not specify any particular procedure for courts providing OPD and OCLA records, unlike other entities whose records access is dependent on motions or notarized forms and judicial discretion. As the statutory context and legislative history plainly demonstrate, the Legislature intended that courts would release permissible records to OPD and OCLA with minimal administrative burden. There is currently no clear basis upon which court clerks may require OPD and OCLA to file notices of appearance in

[original page 10]

individual cases to obtain records access. We conclude that requiring OPD and OCLA to file a notice of appearance likely frustrates the intent of the Legislature to ensure these agencies can fulfill their statutory oversight obligations.

We trust that the foregoing will be useful to you.

NICHOLAS W. BROWN

Attorney General

MICHELLE M. SAPERSTEIN

Assistant Attorney General

lrv

1. ^

   RCW 13.04.011(2) was adopted in 1979, three decades prior to the enactments of RCW 13.50.010(13) and RCW 13.50.010(14). Laws of 1979, ch. 155, § 1(3).

2. ^

   "'Court' when used without further qualification means any superior court or court of limited jurisdiction in the state of Washington."

3. ^

   "'Court' when used without further qualification means the district court . . ., the municipal department . . ., or the municipal court[.]"

4. ^

   RCW 13.50.010(5) ("The court shall grant the motion to examine records unless it finds that in the interests of justice or in the best interests of the juvenile the records or parts of them should remain confidential."); RCW 13.50.010(6) ("If the court grants the motion . . . ."); RCW 13.50.010(8) ("The court may permit inspection of records . . . .").