Two county prosecutors in Western Washington are asking a Thurston County judge to say, in plain terms, that the State of Washington should be on the hook for dozens of lawsuits and tort claims over alleged sexual abuse in local juvenile detention centers. In court papers, the counties argue that superior court judges, whom they describe as state officers, controlled hiring, supervision and the policies that governed the youth detention programs, while counties were responsible for building and paying for the physical facilities. Snohomish County told the court it faces roughly $87 million in potential exposure, and Pierce County has said more than 100 claims could total about $280 million.
Counties Ask Court To Shift Liability
Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Jason Cummings and Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Mary Robnett filed a declaratory judgment action in Thurston County Superior Court on July 24. They want a judge to name the state as the proper defendant in current and future cases tied to juvenile detention, according to Pierce County. The filing also asks for an injunction that would require the state to answer claims tied to juvenile court operations. Prosecutors emphasize that the move is about deciding who must defend and pay for the suits, not about deciding whether the underlying abuse allegations are true.
Claims And Lawsuits Behind The Filing
The counties’ court papers say Snohomish County is named in two multi-plaintiff lawsuits and has received additional claims tied to alleged abuse at the Denney Youth Center and Denney Juvenile Justice Center. The county estimates its potential exposure at roughly $87 million, according to HeraldNet. Seattle law firms, including Hagens Berman, have filed complaints on behalf of former detainees who allege decades of sexual abuse, and a former Denney employee has separately claimed retaliation after reporting misconduct.
The Counties' Legal Theory
Pierce and Snohomish counties say the division of responsibilities is the key legal issue. Counties, they argue, build, maintain and pay for the detention facilities. Superior court judges, by contrast, control the policies, hire juvenile court staff and supervise their work. Those duties, the counties say, make the state, not the counties, the proper defendant. That position is laid out in their court filing and echoed in their public statement, which frames the request as a narrow question about which level of government is obligated to defend and satisfy these claims, according to Pierce County.
Statute Change That Opened The Door
County officials and the filings point to a 2024 change in state law that removed time limits for many civil claims arising from childhood sexual abuse, a shift that attorneys say helped trigger a wave of new tort notices and lawsuits. The statute now provides that there is no time limit for actions based on childhood sexual abuse that occurred on or after June 6, 2024, as set out in RCW 4.16.340.
What It Means For Counties And Taxpayers
Pierce County officials have been blunt about the stakes. County Executive Ryan Mello has said the county received more than 100 claims totaling roughly $280 million, a number local leaders warned could severely strain or even “bankrupt” the county if paid in full, according to reporting by The News Tribune. Prosecutors argue that, unless a judge shifts responsibility to the state, local taxpayers will continue footing the bill for legal defense and any eventual payouts.
Next Steps And State Response
The declaratory action asks a Thurston County judge to decide which level of government is the proper defendant and to order the state to respond to the claims. Prosecutors stress that the decision would sort out who defends the suits, rather than resolve whether abuse occurred. As HeraldNet reports, a spokesperson for the Washington Attorney General’s Office said the agency is reviewing the filing and had no immediate comment.
Legal Implications
A ruling that names the state as the proper defendant would not address the substance of the abuse allegations. It would instead shift responsibility for legal defense, settlement negotiations and potential payouts from county budgets to the state, a practical budget change with significant ripple effects for local services. If the court turns down the counties’ request, Pierce and Snohomish would likely continue defending the cases and budgeting for possible judgments and settlements, a scenario county prosecutors say would come at the expense of other local priorities.
