How to Fill Out Washington Form PRO 06 (w/Examples) + FAQs

Washington Form GDN PRO 06, titled Order Appointing Guardian and/or Conservator for an Adult, is the superior court order a judge signs to legally place a guardian or conservator over an adult under the Uniform Guardianship Act. The petitioner’s lawyer, the proposed guardian, or a pro se family member drafts this order before the appointment hearing and presents it to the judge for signature, because without a signed PRO 06 no Letters of Office (GDN PRO 07) can issue and the guardian has no legal power to act.

Roughly 30,000 adult guardianship and conservatorship cases are open in Washington at any given time, according to the Certified Professional Guardianship and Conservatorship Board, and the Administrative Office of the Courts reports that more than 1 in 5 proposed orders gets bounced back at presentation for missing checkboxes, blank bond amounts, or scope-of-authority errors. This guide walks you through every box on the current form so your order does not get rejected.

• 📝 How to fill out every box on GDN PRO 06 line by line, in plain English
• ⚖️ Which RCW 11.130 statutes drive each section and what happens if you skip one
• 👨‍👩‍👧 Three full filled-out examples for the most common Washington family situations
• 💵 Filing fees, e-filing steps, and proof-of-filing for every Washington county
• 🚫 The 10 mistakes that get PRO 06 orders rejected and how to avoid each one

What Form GDN PRO 06 Is and Who Must File It

Form GDN PRO 06 is the proposed order the superior court signs to appoint a guardian of the person, a conservator of the estate, or both, over an adult who cannot make some or all of their own decisions. The form lives on the Washington Courts mandatory forms page and was last revised in June 2024 to match the 2022 and 2023 amendments to RCW 11.130. You should check the revision date in the lower-left footer of your downloaded copy before filling it out, because judges reject older versions.

The proposed guardian or conservator files this order, but in practice three groups draft it most often. Pro se adult children file it when an aging parent loses capacity. Certified Professional Guardians (CPGs) file it when no family member is willing or suitable. Attorneys file it on behalf of petitioners in contested matters or when a personal-injury settlement requires a conservator for an injured adult.

The order is governed by RCW 11.130.265 for guardianships and RCW 11.130.365 for conservatorships, and it must mirror the findings the court made on the Order on Adult Protected Person’s Rights (GDN PRO 05). If your PRO 06 grants powers the PRO 05 did not authorize, the clerk will reject it at the counter and the hearing will need to be reset.

You file PRO 06 in the superior court of the county where the protected person lives under RCW 11.130.225. Jurisdiction matters because filing in the wrong county voids the appointment. Tribal members and active-duty military families have special venue rules under the Uniform Guardianship Act that override the default county rule.

Before You Start: Documents and Information You Need

Open a folder on your desktop and gather every item below before you start drafting, because pausing mid-form to hunt for a date or address is how filers introduce typos. Washington judges expect the proposed order to match the petition, the report of the Court Visitor, and the PRO 05 findings exactly. Any mismatch triggers a continuance.

• The signed Petition (GDN PRO 01 or PRO 02) — every name, date, and address on PRO 06 must match it letter for letter, or the clerk’s deputy will flag it.
• The Court Visitor’s Report under RCW 11.130.090 — the scope of authority on PRO 06 must track the visitor’s recommendations.
• The proposed guardian’s Declaration and CPG number (if applicable) — the Certified Professional Guardian Board roster confirms the active certification number.
• The protected person’s full legal name, date of birth, and current address — pulled from a birth certificate or state ID, not from memory.
• The bond estimate from a surety company — bonds in Washington run roughly $5 per $1,000 of estate value, and you need an exact dollar figure for Section 5.
• The case number assigned by the county clerk when you filed the petition — written in the YY-4-#####-# COA format used by Washington courts.
• The next hearing or review date — the court calendar clerk gives you this; it usually falls 90 days out for inventory and 1 year out for the annual report.
• A list of all real and personal property the protected person owns — needed to set the conservator’s powers and bond.
• Names and addresses of all “interested persons” under RCW 11.130.080 — spouses, adult children, parents, and anyone living with the adult.
• Any advance directive, power of attorney, or trust documents — the order must say whether existing instruments stay in effect.

If any item is missing the day you draft, stop and get it. A blank field on PRO 06 is worse than a delayed filing because the judge can sign a defective order, and unwinding a defective appointment requires a separate motion to vacate.

Where to Get the Form and How to Access It

The current PDF lives at the Washington Courts forms library under “Guardianship — Adult.” Download the fillable PDF rather than the print-only version because the fillable version saves you from handwriting on a 9-page form and from clerks rejecting illegible orders. Save the file with the protected person’s last name and case number in the filename, like Smith_24-4-01234-1_PRO06.pdf.

Many counties also host the form on their local clerk’s pages. King County Superior Court links the state-approved version directly. Pierce County Superior Court, Snohomish County Superior Court, and Spokane County Superior Court do the same. Always pull from a .gov domain, never a third-party legal forms site, because outdated copies still float around the web.

If you cannot download or print, the county clerk’s facilitator office keeps paper copies. King County’s Family Law Facilitator hands them out for a small copying fee. Facilitators cannot give legal advice but can confirm you have the current revision.

For accessibility, the Administrative Office of the Courts publishes a screen-reader-compatible version on request through accessibility@courts.wa.gov. Filers with limited English proficiency can request court interpreters under GR 11.1, and many counties translate the companion notice forms into Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese, and Mandarin, though the order itself must be filed in English.

Step-by-Step: How to Fill Out GDN PRO 06 Line by Line

The form runs roughly 9 pages and is divided into a caption, fourteen numbered sections, and signature blocks. Work top to bottom and never skip a checkbox, even if it seems irrelevant — judges read every box.

Caption: Court, County, and Case Number

The caption sits at the very top of page 1 and identifies the court, the parties, and the case. The caption is small but it is the first thing the clerk’s deputy scans, so any error here means instant rejection at the counter.

In plain English, this section asks which superior court is hearing this case, who the protected person is, and what case number was assigned. Type the county name in all caps in the “Superior Court of Washington, County of ____” line. List the protected person by full legal name in the “In re the Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of:” line. Fill the case number in the upper-right box exactly as it appears on the petition stamp.

For example, Maria Lopez, an adult daughter petitioning for her father Hector Lopez in King County, types KING on the county line, HECTOR LOPEZ on the protected-person line, and 24-4-01234-1 SEA in the case number box.

A nuance comes up when the protected person uses a different name day-to-day. Use the legal name from the birth certificate or driver’s license, then add “also known as” with the alias underneath. The clerk needs the legal name for indexing.

The most common mistake is copying the case number from a related probate or family-law file. The consequence is the order gets entered in the wrong file, the guardian’s letters never issue, and the proposed guardian has no legal authority while the mistake is unwound by motion.

A misconception filers carry is that the caption “carries over” automatically when they reuse the petition. It does not. Each form is a standalone document, and judges have rejected PRO 06 orders for missing the case number even when the petition right behind it had the number stamped on it.

Section 1: Basis for the Order

Section 1 asks the court to state the legal foundation for appointing a guardian or conservator. It tracks the findings the judge entered on PRO 05 and cites the controlling statute.

To answer it, check the box for “Guardianship,” “Conservatorship,” or both, depending on what the petition asked for and what PRO 05 granted. Then check the sub-box that cites either RCW 11.130.265 (guardianship) or RCW 11.130.365 (conservatorship), or both.

For example, Hector Lopez has dementia and owns a paid-off house, so Maria checks both boxes and cites both statutes. Her order says: “The court appoints a guardian under RCW 11.130.265 and a conservator under RCW 11.130.365.”

The nuance is “limited” versus “full” appointments. Washington favors the least restrictive alternative under RCW 11.130.001, so if PRO 05 limited the appointment to medical decisions only, you must check the “limited” sub-box and describe the limitation in Section 6, not the “full” box.

The mistake to avoid is checking “full guardianship” out of habit. The consequence is the judge strikes the box, lines through it, and orders you to redraft, which means another presentation hearing and another trip to court.

The misconception is that “guardian” and “conservator” are interchangeable in Washington. They are not. A guardian handles personal and medical decisions. A conservator handles financial decisions. Mixing the terms muddies the order and confuses third parties like banks and hospitals.

Section 2: Findings About the Adult

Section 2 restates the court’s findings about the protected person’s identity and capacity. It mirrors the PRO 05 findings but in order form.

Fill in the protected person’s full legal name, date of birth, and current residential address. Then check the boxes that match PRO 05: that the adult is unable to receive and evaluate information or make or communicate decisions, that the adult’s identifiable needs cannot be met by less restrictive alternatives, and that the appointment is in the adult’s best interest.

For example, Maria writes Hector Lopez, 03/14/1948, 1422 S. Henderson St., Seattle, WA 98108, and checks all three findings boxes that the judge granted on PRO 05.

The nuance is that the address controls venue and notice under RCW 11.130.225. If the adult lives in a nursing home, list the facility address, not the family home, because the facility is where the visitor and any future review hearings will look.

The mistake is using a P.O. Box. The consequence is the order is voidable for improper venue, and a contesting heir can move to vacate the appointment months or years later.

The misconception is that “best interest” is a soft, optional finding. It is not. Washington appellate courts have vacated guardianship orders that lacked an explicit best-interest finding, even when the rest of the record supported the appointment.

Section 3: Identity of the Guardian or Conservator

Section 3 names the person or agency the court is appointing. It distinguishes lay (family) guardians from Certified Professional Guardians.

Type the appointee’s full legal name, mailing address, phone number, and, if a CPG, the certification number issued by the Certified Professional Guardianship and Conservatorship Board. Check whether the appointee is an individual, an agency, or a financial institution.

For example, Aisha Bennett is a CPG appointed to serve David Wong, an adult with a developmental disability, after his parents passed away. Aisha enters her CPG number CPG-2019-0457 and her agency address.

The nuance is co-guardians. If two siblings serve together, list both in this section and add language in Section 6 stating whether they must act jointly or may act independently. Co-guardian conflicts are the #1 reason for removal motions in Washington.

The mistake is leaving the CPG number blank when a CPG is appointed. The consequence is the bonding company refuses to issue a bond because they verify CPG status before underwriting, and the appointment stalls.

The misconception is that an out-of-state relative can serve without restriction. They can serve, but RCW 11.130.310 requires them to appoint an in-state agent for service of process and may require a higher bond.

Section 4: Powers Granted

Section 4 is the heart of the order. It lists every power the guardian or conservator may exercise. Every power not checked is reserved to the protected person, per the least-restrictive-alternative principle.

Read each checkbox carefully and check only the powers PRO 05 authorized. Common boxes include the power to consent to medical care, to choose residence, to make end-of-life decisions, to manage real property, to manage personal property, to invest funds, and to file tax returns. The form has roughly 18 sub-boxes; do not skim them.

For example, Janet Reyes, conservator for her injured brother Marcus Reyes who has a $750,000 personal-injury settlement, checks the boxes for managing personal property, investing funds in court-approved instruments, paying medical providers, and filing tax returns. She does not check real-property powers because Marcus owns no real estate.

The nuance is “major life decisions” under RCW 11.130.300, which include marriage, divorce, voting, sterilization, abortion, and electroconvulsive therapy. These powers require separate, specific court authorization and cannot be granted by a generic checkbox.

The mistake is checking “all powers” or every box. The consequence is the judge strikes through the over-grants and may continue the hearing for redrafting, delaying the guardian’s authority by weeks.

The misconception is that the guardian can later “expand” powers without coming back to court. They cannot. Any new power requires a petition to modify, notice to all interested persons, and a fresh hearing.

Section 5: Bond Amount

Section 5 sets the conservator’s bond. Bond protects the estate from theft, mismanagement, and surety claims.

Calculate the bond based on the value of personal property plus one year of anticipated income, per RCW 11.130.395. Real property held in the protected person’s name is generally excluded unless the conservator has power to sell it. Enter the dollar figure as a number, not a range.

For example, Janet Reyes’s bond on Marcus’s $750,000 settlement plus $30,000 anticipated annual interest is set at $780,000, written $780,000.00 on the line.

The nuance is the “blocked account” alternative. If the funds are deposited in a court-blocked account at a federally insured bank, the judge may waive or reduce the bond. Check the blocked-account sub-box and attach the bank’s acknowledgment.

The mistake is leaving the bond line blank for a guardian-only appointment. The consequence is the clerk still flags it because the form has a “no bond required” sub-box that must be checked affirmatively, not left blank.

The misconception is that family members do not need a bond because they are trusted. Washington law requires a bond regardless of relationship unless the court makes specific findings under RCW 11.130.395(3) waiving it.

Section 6: Limitations and Special Conditions

Section 6 is the free-text area where the court spells out limitations, special conditions, and any custom language. This is where the least restrictive alternative principle gets concrete.

Write each limitation as a numbered sentence in plain English. Examples include “The guardian shall consult with the protected person before any change in residence,” or “The conservator shall not sell real property without further order of the court.” Keep each sentence short and specific.

For example, Maria Lopez writes: “1. The guardian shall preserve Hector’s right to vote. 2. The guardian shall not place Hector in a memory-care facility without further order. 3. The conservator shall not sell the family home at 1422 S. Henderson without further order.”

The nuance is that limitations bind third parties once Letters of Office issue. Banks, hospitals, and care facilities read the order before honoring decisions, so vague limitations create real-world friction.

The mistake is using legalese like “sui juris” or “in personam.” The consequence is third parties cannot interpret the limitation, and the guardian gets stuck explaining the order at every doctor’s office and bank counter.

The misconception is that this section is optional. It is not. RCW 11.130.265(2) requires the court to state on the record the rights retained by the protected person, and Section 6 is where those retained rights are memorialized.

Section 7: Reporting Requirements

Section 7 sets the deadlines for the guardian’s care plan, the conservator’s inventory, and the annual reports. These deadlines are statutory and non-negotiable.

Fill in the inventory deadline (90 days from appointment, per RCW 11.130.425), the care plan deadline (60 days from appointment, per RCW 11.130.335), and the annual report due date (1 year from appointment plus 90 days). Use MM/DD/YYYY format.

For example, Aisha Bennett, appointed for David Wong on 04/15/2026, writes the inventory due 07/14/2026, the care plan due 06/14/2026, and the first annual report due 07/14/2027.

The nuance is that some judges set shorter custom intervals for high-risk cases or large estates, such as quarterly accountings for estates over $1 million. Read the judge’s bench notes before drafting.

The mistake is calculating from the petition filing date rather than the appointment date. The consequence is the inventory comes in early or late, and the auditor’s review under GR 23 flags the case for non-compliance, which can trigger removal proceedings.

The misconception is that the guardian can extend deadlines informally. They cannot. Any extension requires a written motion under CR 7, notice to interested persons, and a court order.

Section 8: Letters of Office

Section 8 directs the clerk to issue Letters of Office (GDN PRO 07), which are the wallet-sized credentials the guardian carries to prove authority to banks, hospitals, and the Social Security Administration.

Check the box directing the clerk to issue letters and specify their expiration date, which is one year from issuance and renewable annually upon timely filing of the annual report. Note any conditions, such as “letters shall not issue until bond is filed and approved.”

For example, Janet Reyes’s order says letters issue upon proof of the $780,000 bond, expiring 04/15/2027.

The nuance is certified copies. Banks usually demand a certified copy with a raised seal, and the clerk charges per copy. Order at least 3 certified copies at issuance to avoid repeat trips.

The mistake is forgetting to check the issuance box. The consequence is no letters issue, the guardian has no usable proof of authority, and every bank, doctor, and landlord refuses to talk to them.

The misconception is that letters are permanent. They expire annually and lapse automatically if the annual report is late, which freezes the guardian’s authority until the report is accepted and renewed letters issue.

Section 9: Court Visitor’s Continuing Role

Section 9 addresses whether the court visitor or guardian ad litem has any continuing role after appointment.

Check whether the visitor’s appointment terminates with entry of the order or continues for a defined period or task. If continued, state the scope and the compensation source.

For example, Hector Lopez’s case has a continuing visitor for 90 days to monitor Hector’s transition to in-home care, paid from the conservatorship estate.

The nuance is that judges in contested cases routinely keep the visitor on for 6–12 months. Anticipate this if siblings or estranged spouses contested the appointment.

The mistake is assuming termination is automatic. The consequence is the visitor keeps billing the estate, and the conservator gets surcharged for paying invoices on a terminated appointment.

The misconception is that the visitor and the guardian ad litem are the same role. They are not. A visitor investigates capacity. A guardian ad litem advocates a position. The order must use the correct title, or the GAL Registry will not honor billing.

Section 10: Compensation

Section 10 sets how the guardian and conservator get paid. Lay guardians often serve without fee; CPGs always charge.

Specify the hourly rate or flat fee structure, the requirement for prior court approval of fees over a threshold (commonly $1,500 per quarter), and whether attorney fees may be paid from the estate. Cite RCW 11.130.275 and RCW 11.130.395.

For example, Aisha Bennett’s order sets her CPG rate at $95/hour, paralegal time at $55/hour, and requires prior approval for any quarter exceeding $2,000.

The nuance is fee disgorgement. If a CPG bills above the order’s cap, the court can order the fees returned with interest, and repeat violations end the CPG’s certification.

The mistake is leaving compensation blank for a CPG. The consequence is the CPG must petition for fees later, which adds delay and attorney costs that the estate ultimately pays.

The misconception is that family guardians cannot be paid. They can, if the order so provides and the court approves the fees, but most family guardians waive compensation to preserve estate value.

Section 11: Notice Requirements

Section 11 lists the people who must receive copies of the order and ongoing notices.

List every interested person by name and address, per RCW 11.130.080. Include the protected person, spouse, adult children, parents, anyone living with the protected person, and any agent under a power of attorney.

For example, Maria Lopez lists herself, her two brothers, Hector’s sister in Arizona, and Hector’s longtime caregiver who lives in the home.

The nuance is estranged family. You cannot omit a hostile sibling because they are inconvenient; the statute requires notice to all interested persons regardless of family dynamics.

The mistake is leaving an interested person off the list. The consequence is the omitted person can move to vacate the order under CR 60 for years afterward, undoing every act the guardian took.

The misconception is that adult grandchildren are automatically interested persons. They are not, unless they live with the adult or are named in an estate plan, in which case they qualify under the statute’s catch-all.

Section 12: Findings of Fact (Optional Detailed)

Section 12 lets the order incorporate detailed findings of fact, often by reference to PRO 05 or by attaching a transcript.

Check the box that incorporates the PRO 05 findings by reference, or attach written findings as Exhibit A. For contested cases, write detailed findings here so the appellate record is complete.

For example, in Marcus Reyes’s contested case, Janet attaches 4 pages of findings detailing Marcus’s traumatic brain injury, his current cognitive testing, and the unanimous recommendation of the treatment team.

The nuance is appellate review. Washington appellate courts review guardianship orders for abuse of discretion, and detailed findings dramatically improve the order’s chances on appeal.

The mistake is copying boilerplate findings that do not match the record. The consequence is reversal on appeal, sometimes years after the appointment, with restitution owed to the protected person.

The misconception is that findings can be added later. They cannot. Findings must be entered with the order, and post-hoc findings are a common appellate reversal trigger.

Section 13: Effective Date

Section 13 states when the order takes effect.

Choose immediately upon entry, upon posting of bond, or upon a date certain. The default is upon entry, but conservatorships almost always defer effectiveness until the bond is posted.

For example, Janet Reyes’s order is effective upon posting of the $780,000 bond, anticipated within 10 days.

The nuance is the gap period between entry and bond posting. During this gap, no one has authority over the estate, so banks freeze accounts and bills go unpaid. Plan with the surety to minimize this gap.

The mistake is making the order effective immediately when a bond is required. The consequence is the conservator is technically liable from day one but has no bond protection, exposing them to personal liability for any loss.

The misconception is that “immediate” means the guardian can act before the order is entered into the court file. They cannot. Effectiveness runs from clerk entry, not judge signature.

Section 14: Signature Blocks

The final page holds the judge’s signature block, the presenter’s signature block, and the approval signatures of any other parties.

The judge signs and dates the order. The presenter (you, the petitioner, or your attorney) signs above your typed name, address, phone, and Washington State Bar number if applicable. Other parties or their counsel sign in the “Approved as to Form” or “Approved for Entry” blocks.

For example, Maria Lopez signs as a pro se presenter with her phone number and email; the GAL signs as approved as to form; and the judge signs and dates last.

The nuance is electronic signatures under GR 30. Washington courts accept /s/ Maria Lopez on e-filed orders, but the original paper hearing copy still needs a wet signature.

The mistake is presenting the order without the proposed guardian’s signature acknowledging the powers and duties. The consequence is the clerk holds the order pending the missing signature, and letters do not issue.

The misconception is that the judge fills in the date. The presenter writes the hearing date in pencil; the judge writes the entry date in ink. They are often the same day but not always.

Three Filled-Out Examples Using Real Scenarios

Scenario 1: Maria Lopez Files for Her Father With Dementia

Form Section	What Maria Enters
Caption	KING County; In re Guardianship and/or Conservatorship of HECTOR LOPEZ; Case No. 24-4-01234-1 SEA
Section 1 — Basis	Both guardianship and conservatorship under RCW 11.130.265 and 11.130.365
Section 2 — Findings	Hector Lopez, DOB 03/14/1948, 1422 S. Henderson St., Seattle, WA 98108; all three findings boxes checked
Section 3 — Identity	Maria Lopez, daughter, 3300 Beacon Ave S., Seattle, WA 98144, no CPG number
Section 4 — Powers	Medical consent, residence choice, real property management, personal property management, tax filings
Section 5 — Bond	$185,000.00 covering personal property and 1 year of Social Security and pension income
Section 6 — Limitations	Preserve voting rights; no memory-care placement without further order; no sale of family home without further order
Section 7 — Reporting	Inventory due 07/14/2026; care plan due 06/14/2026; first annual report due 07/14/2027
Section 13 — Effective	Effective upon posting of bond

Scenario 2: Aisha Bennett Serves as CPG for an Adult With Developmental Disability

Form Section	What Aisha Enters
Caption	PIERCE County; In re Guardianship of DAVID WONG; Case No. 26-4-00892-3 PIE
Section 1 — Basis	Guardianship only under RCW 11.130.265
Section 2 — Findings	David Wong, DOB 09/22/2004, group home address in Tacoma; least-restrictive-alternative finding emphasized
Section 3 — Identity	Aisha Bennett, CPG CPG-2019-0457, agency at 1100 Pacific Ave., Tacoma, WA 98402
Section 4 — Powers	Medical consent, residence choice, education and vocational decisions, social and recreational decisions
Section 5 — Bond	$0 (no estate; SSI funds in representative-payee account) — “no bond required” box checked
Section 6 — Limitations	Retain marriage rights; retain right to choose social contacts; consult David before residence change
Section 7 — Reporting	Care plan due 06/14/2026; first annual report due 04/15/2027
Section 10 — Compensation	$95/hour CPG; prior approval over $2,000/quarter; paid from DDA waiver where allowed

Scenario 3: Janet Reyes Conserves Her Brother’s PI Settlement

Form Section	What Janet Enters
Caption	SNOHOMISH County; In re Conservatorship of MARCUS REYES; Case No. 26-4-00455-7 SNO
Section 1 — Basis	Conservatorship only under RCW 11.130.365
Section 2 — Findings	Marcus Reyes, DOB 11/02/1991, 815 Rockefeller Ave., Everett, WA 98201; TBI from MVA documented
Section 3 — Identity	Janet Reyes, sister, 2204 W. Casino Rd., Everett, WA 98204
Section 4 — Powers	Manage personal property, invest in court-approved instruments, pay medical providers, file taxes
Section 5 — Bond	$780,000.00 — covers $750,000 settlement plus $30,000 annual interest
Section 6 — Limitations	No real-property purchase without further order; quarterly accounting required
Section 7 — Reporting	Inventory due 07/14/2026; quarterly accountings; first annual report due 07/14/2027
Section 12 — Findings	Detailed 4-page findings attached as Exhibit A
Section 13 — Effective	Effective upon posting of $780,000 bond

How to File the Completed Form

You file PRO 06 in the superior court of the county where the protected person lives. The clerk’s office accepts orders three ways: e-filing, in person, and by mail. Counties differ slightly, so confirm with the clerk before your hearing.

E-filing through the Odyssey portal is the default in most large counties. King County e-filing charges no upload fee beyond the case-filing fee. Pierce County e-filing and Snohomish County e-filing work similarly. Spokane County e-filing uses the same Tyler-Odyssey system. Upload the proposed order as a separate PDF labeled Proposed Order Appointing Guardian/Conservator (PRO 06), present at the hearing, and the judge signs electronically. Processing time is same-day. Save the conformed copy with the clerk’s stamp as your proof of filing.

In-person filing at the county clerk’s counter is still available everywhere. Bring three copies: the original for the file, a working copy for the judge, and a conformed copy for yourself. The base civil filing fee is roughly $240 statewide under RCW 36.18.020, payable by cash, check, money order, or credit card (most counties charge a 2.5% card fee). Same-day stamping; the conformed copy is your proof of filing.

Mail filing is accepted for non-emergency presentations. Send the original plus a self-addressed stamped envelope to the clerk’s mailing address (e.g., King County Superior Court Clerk, 516 Third Ave., Room E-609, Seattle, WA 98104). Include a check for the filing fee. Processing time is 7–10 business days. The conformed copy returned in your SASE is your proof.

Fax filing is no longer accepted by Washington superior courts as of the 2023 e-filing rule update under GR 30. Do not attempt to fax orders.

What Happens After You File

Once the judge signs and the clerk enters PRO 06, three things happen in sequence. The clerk dockets the order and updates the case file in Odyssey. The clerk issues Letters of Office (GDN PRO 07) if you checked Section 8 and the bond (if any) is posted. The clerk sends a copy to the Certified Professional Guardianship Board for monitoring.

Within 30 days, the guardian or conservator must serve the entered order on every interested person under RCW 11.130.080 and file proof of service. Within 60 days, a guardian must file the care plan. Within 90 days, a conservator must file the inventory.

The court schedules an annual review roughly 13 months out. Calendar this date in three places: your phone, a paper backup, and a shared calendar with co-guardians. Missed annual reports are the leading cause of involuntary guardian removal in Washington.

If the protected person, or any interested person, disagrees with any part of the order, they may file a motion for reconsideration within 10 days under CR 59, or appeal to the Court of Appeals within 30 days under RAP 5.2. After those windows close, only a CR 60 motion for vacation can disturb the order.

Mistakes to Avoid When Filling Out the Form

• Using an outdated revision of the form — the June 2024 version replaced multiple older versions; outdated forms are rejected at presentation.
• Mismatched names between PRO 05 and PRO 06 — the clerk catches this at the counter and the order does not enter.
• Blank bond line — even “$0” must be written affirmatively, with the no-bond-required box checked.
• Checking “full guardianship” when PRO 05 ordered limited guardianship — judges strike the over-grant and continue the hearing.
• Wrong case number — the order gets entered in the wrong file and the guardian has no authority while the error is unwound.
• Missing CPG certification number — bonding companies refuse to underwrite, stalling the appointment.
• Forgetting to check the Letters of Office issuance box — no letters issue and the guardian cannot prove authority.
• Listing a P.O. Box as the protected person’s address — voids venue and exposes the order to a CR 60 motion.
• Omitting an interested person from the notice list — opens the door to a vacation motion years later.
• Granting “major life decisions” by generic checkbox — Washington requires specific findings and separate authorization.
• Computing reporting deadlines from the petition date instead of the appointment date — auditors flag the case for non-compliance.
• Wet-signing an e-filed order without uploading it — the judge’s signature is invalid until the file is in Odyssey.

Do’s and Don’ts

• Do download the form fresh from the Washington Courts forms library for every new case, because revisions happen quietly.
• Do match every name, date, and address to the petition exactly, because clerks compare line by line.
• Do order at least three certified copies of Letters of Office, because banks and hospitals each demand their own original.
• Do calendar all reporting deadlines the day the order is entered, because missed deadlines trigger removal proceedings.
• Do consult a Washington guardianship attorney for any contested case, because pro se errors in contested matters compound on appeal.
• Do keep a working folder with the petition, PRO 05, PRO 06, Letters, bond, and inventory, because every future filing references these documents.
• Don’t check every powers box “to be safe,” because over-broad orders get struck and continued.
• Don’t use legalese in Section 6, because third-party banks and hospitals will not honor unclear limitations.
• Don’t assume the visitor’s appointment terminates automatically, because unbilled visitor time can surcharge the estate.
• Don’t rely on email to interested persons for notice, because RCW 11.130.080 requires statutorily compliant service.
• Don’t wait to post the bond, because the conservator has no protection during the gap period.
• Don’t ignore the CPG Board standards, because non-CPG family guardians can still be sanctioned for falling short of professional norms.

Pros and Cons of Filing on Your Own vs. With Help

• Pro of pro se: Saves attorney fees, which average $4,000–$8,000 for an uncontested guardianship in Washington, preserving estate value for the protected person.
• Pro of pro se: Gives the family direct ownership of the case file and timeline, which matters when judges set short presentation windows.
• Pro of pro se: Keeps decision-making within the family for sensitive medical and residence questions, where outsiders may not grasp the nuance.
• Pro of pro se: County facilitator offices provide free procedural guidance, which lowers the pro se error rate substantially.
• Pro of pro se: Pro se filers learn the system, which makes the annual reports and renewals easier in subsequent years.
• Con of pro se: Drafting errors are common, and a defective PRO 06 can delay the appointment by 4–8 weeks.
• Con of pro se: Bond underwriting is harder without an attorney’s surety relationships, and quotes can run higher.
• Con of pro se: Contested cases nearly always require counsel, because evidentiary rules and cross-examination are not navigable without training.
• Con of pro se: Personal liability exposure is real if the order is defective, and pro se filers do not carry malpractice insurance the way attorneys do.
• Con of pro se: Appellate procedure is unforgiving, and a pro se loss in the trial court is hard to undo without counsel on appeal.

FAQs

Is GDN PRO 06 the same as Letters of Office?

No. PRO 06 is the order appointing the guardian; Letters of Office (GDN PRO 07) are the wallet-sized credentials issued by the clerk after the order is entered and bond is posted.

Do I need an attorney to file PRO 06 in Washington?

No. Washington allows pro se filing, but contested cases, estates over $500,000, or cases involving real property strongly favor hiring a Washington guardianship attorney.

Does the protected person have to attend the hearing?

Yes. Under RCW 11.130.215, the adult must attend unless the court excuses attendance based on medical evidence and a court visitor’s recommendation.

Can I leave the bond line blank if the estate has no money?

No. You must affirmatively check the “no bond required” box and enter $0 on the bond line; blank lines trigger automatic clerk rejection at presentation.

Do I write “guardian” or “conservator” in Section 3 if I’m both?

Yes. Write both titles separated by “and,” because Washington treats the roles as distinct under RCW 11.130 and third parties need to see both titles.

Should I list a P.O. Box for the protected person in Section 2?

No. Always list the residential street address, because P.O. Boxes void venue under RCW 11.130.225 and expose the order to a vacation motion.

Can co-guardians act independently?

Yes, but only if Section 6 explicitly says so; the default rule under RCW 11.130.305 is that co-guardians must act jointly unless the order states otherwise.

Are there filing fees for PRO 06 itself?

No. PRO 06 carries no separate fee because it is filed within the existing guardianship case; the case-filing fee of roughly $240 was paid when the petition was filed.

Can a CPG serve without a number listed in Section 3?

No. The CPG Board requires the certification number on every order, and bonding companies will not underwrite without it.

Does PRO 06 expire?

No, the order itself does not expire, but the Letters of Office issued under it expire annually and must be renewed after each accepted annual report.

Do I need to serve PRO 06 on the protected person’s doctors?

No, doctors are not statutory interested persons, but practical service is wise so they recognize the guardian’s medical-consent authority without delay.

Can I add powers to PRO 06 after it is signed?

No. Any new power requires a petition to modify, notice to interested persons, and a fresh hearing under RCW 11.130.330.

Is e-filing PRO 06 mandatory in Washington?

No, but most counties strongly prefer it, and GR 30 makes e-filing the default channel for represented parties in superior court.

What happens if I check the wrong powers box?

No appointment fails outright, but the judge will strike the wrong box, initial the strike, and may continue the hearing for redrafting before signing.