Finds that the decisions in In re Young, 120 Wn. App. 753, review denied, _Wn.2d_(2004) and In re Ward, _Wn.App. _ (2005) illustrate an unintended consequence of language in chapter 71.09 RCW.

Declares that the Young and Ward decisions are contrary to the legislature's intent set forth in RCW 71.09.010 that civil commitment pursuant to chapter 71.09 RCW address the "very long-term" needs of the sexually violent predator population for treatment and the equally long-term needs of the community for protection from these offenders.

Finds that the mental abnormalities and personality disorders that make a person subject to commitment under chapter 71.09 RCW are severe and chronic and do not remit due solely to advancing age or changes in other demographic factors.

Declares that the Young and Ward decisions are contrary to the legislature's intent that the risk posed by persons committed under chapter 71.09 RCW will generally require prolonged treatment in a secure facility followed by intensive community supervision in the cases where positive treatment gains are sufficient for community safety.

Finds that, in some cases, a committed person may appropriately challenge whether he or she continues to meet the criteria for commitment. Because of this, the legislature enacted RCW 71.09.070 and 71.09.090, requiring a regular review of a committed person's status and permitting the person the opportunity to present evidence of a relevant change in condition from the time of the last commitment trial proceeding.

Declares that these provisions are intended only to provide a method of revisiting the indefinite commitment due to a relevant change in the person's condition, not an alternate method of collaterally attacking a person's indefinite commitment for reasons unrelated to a change in condition. Where necessary, other existing statutes and court rules provide ample opportunity to resolve any concerns about prior commitment trials.

Declares an intent to clarify the "so changed" standard.