Imagine a foster child, let’s call her Mia, placed from birth with a loving foster family. For three years, she thrives, forming deep attachments and secure bonds. Then, abruptly, she is moved to live with a distant cousin who had never before been part of her life, found only after state workers tracked them down. Mia’s world collapses: Night terrors, bed-wetting and behavioral issues erupt.
This isn’t fiction. It’s a recurring tragedy in Washington’s foster care system, where children are pulled from stable, long-term homes and sent to previously unknown relatives under the dangerous misconception that the law requires it.
The problem stems from a widespread misunderstanding among key players in the child welfare system — Department of Children, Youth and Families social workers, court-appointed advocates for vulnerable people, such as guardians ad litem and Court Appointed Special Advocates, children’s attorneys and even judges — which is the belief that the law prioritizes biology over everything else. Some judges, workers and attorneys do understand the law on this topic, but many do not. Washington’s statutes and case law emphasize relational stability as central to a child’s well-being. Decision-makers must weigh multiple placement factors, not just DNA.
Recent legislative changes, including E2SHB 1227, known as the Keeping Families Together Act, deepened the confusion. It took effect in 2023 and it created a preference for placements with known relatives when a child first comes into foster care. This makes sense, given that it is less distressing for a child to be placed with someone they know rather than a stranger.
Research does show that early kinship care can reduce trauma, but neither research nor the law supports disrupting an established placement when a previously unknown and uninvolved relative surfaces. In fact, the Legislature anticipated this exact misapplication.
Legislative intent language is referenced seven times throughout RCW 13.34: “It is not the intent of the legislature to manufacture or anticipate family relationships which do not exist at the time of the court intervention or to disrupt already existing positive family relationships.”
That should end the debate. But it hasn’t.
A 2022 Washington Supreme Court decision reinforced the preference for relative placement but clarified that this preference exists “in order to effectuate the empirically demonstrated harm‑reduction purposes of relational stability.” Nevertheless, this case is frequently cited as a blanket directive to uproot children from long‑term, secure homes. One wonders whether those citing this case to support this position have actually read it.
This practice ignores decades of research showing that placement instability wreaks havoc on developing brains. Disruptions increase aggression, depression and long‑term mental health challenges. Each move compounds trauma, undermines development and erodes trust in adults. For children who have already endured abuse or neglect, instability can be psychologically devastating.
So why do these legally unnecessary disruptions continue?
Some actors are trying to correct real, long‑standing problems in foster care. The system is undeniably broken, but vulnerable children should not be asked to bear the cost of fixing it. In other cases, overworked caseworkers and undertrained judicial officers default to “family first” without nuanced assessment. The mantra has become so normalized within the system’s insular culture that few question it.
It’s time for reform. DCYF must mandate training dispelling these misconceptions and clarifying that the law’s “meaningful preference” for kin should be applied judiciously, not blindly. Judges should require evidence that any proposed move would benefit the child, not simply further a policy objective. And Washington should invest in programs that help integrate previously unknown relatives into a child’s life without disrupting the child’s existing secure attachments.
Children are legally entitled to stability. By realigning practice with the law’s true intent, Washington can protect vulnerable kids from further, entirely preventable, harm.
