Title: State v. Waleczek
Citation: 585 P.2d 797, 90 Wash. 2d 746
Docket Number: 45135
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: October 26, 1978

90 Wn.2d 746 (1978) 585 P.2d 797 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. FRANK LAWRENCE WALECZEK, Petitioner. No. 45135. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. October 26, 1978. Dennis R. Scott (of Brigham &amp; Brigham), for petitioner. James P. McNally, Prosecuting Attorney, and James B. Roche, Deputy, for respondent. HAMILTON, J. Defendant (petitioner) is charged with the crimes of indecent liberties and communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. He appeals from a preliminary order of the trial court allowing the State to call defendant's wife as a witness. The only issue to be decided is whether defendant is a guardian as that term is used in RCW 5.60.060(1) (the husband-wife privileges). On January 5, 1977, Theraesa Rines and her mother, JoAnn DePew, were visiting with Jessie Val Bennett and defendant. At that time defendant and Ms. Bennett were not married. JoAnn DePew had known the couple socially for about 3 weeks. *748 During this visit, Theraesa, age seven, became interested in certain "ink pens and transfers" possessed by Ms. Bennett. The child asked Ms. Bennett if she could stay overnight with her. Ms. Bennett asked Theraesa's mother for permission, and the mother agreed with the proviso that the child be sent to school the following morning. According to Theraesa's mother, the defendant, who was present during the conversation, did not object to the arrangement. In addition, Theraesa's mother stated that she asked the defendant and Ms. Bennett if they had anything to feed Theraesa for breakfast. The defendant replied that they had oatmeal and that he would get Theraesa up in the morning and off to school. Later that evening the alleged sexual misconduct occurred. On May 2, 1977, Ms. Bennett voluntarily gave a statement to the sheriff's department admitting that she was involved in sexual misconduct with Theraesa, and she also incriminated defendant. On May 6, 1977, defendant and Ms. Bennett were married. Defendant moved to suppress his wife's statements to the sheriff (which she made before marriage) and to have her prevented from being called as a witness by the State. Defendant relies upon the husband-wife privileges contained in RCW 5.60.060(1). The trial court denied defendant's motion ruling that a guardianship relationship was established during the child's one night stay in defendant's home. We affirm this holding of the trial court. Defendant argues that the "guardian" exception to the privileges contained in RCW 5.60.060(1) does not apply to him because the legislature was primarily concerned with an established parental or familial relationship and child abuse committed in the victim-child's own home. He argues further that in order for a person to be considered a child's guardian there must be some judicial appointment or some natural or "legal" relationship to the child, and *749 generally there must be a passage of a period of time longer than that involved herein. [1] The basic goal of all statutory construction is to carry out the intent of the legislature. Dominick v. Christensen, 87 Wn.2d 25, 584 P.2d 541 (1976). In order to accomplish this goal we must examine the privileges contained in RCW 5.60.060(1) and the origins of the "guardian" exception contained therein. RCW 5.60.060(1) provides: (Italics ours.) [2] The husband-wife privileges are not highly favored by legal commentators. See E. Cleary, McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence §§ 66 and 86 (2d ed. 1972); 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law §§ 2228 and 2332 (McNaughton rev. 1961). In State v. Thompson, 88 Wn.2d 518, 564 P.2d 315 (1977), we recognized that these privileges often promote the suppression of truth, and that in some situations principles of public policy make it more important that the witness'-spouse's testimony be available. We think the present case is one of those situations. The italicized portion of RCW 5.60.060(1) quoted previously was added by Laws of 1965, ch. 13, § 7, p. 972. This act also contains the basis for our present child abuse reporting statute, RCW 26.44. Laws of 1965, ch. 13, § 1, p. 970, now codified as part of RCW 26.44.010, stated the purpose of the act: (Italics ours.) RCW 26.44.010 has since been amended to make even a stronger statement of purpose. It now declares, in part: (Italics ours.) Both RCW 26.44.010 and its predecessor, Laws of 1965, ch. 13, § 1, make it abundantly clear that the legislature, as well as the public generally, is greatly concerned with incidents of physical and sexual child abuse. Further, these declarations imply that the legislature is not concerned with child abuse only in certain situations, but that it is concerned with all incidents of child abuse. *751 This court has recognized the legislature's strong policy on two prior occasions. The most recent case is State v. Fagalde, 85 Wn.2d 730, 539 P.2d 86 (1975). There defendant argued that certain testimony against him, which tended to show he assaulted the 3-year-old son of a woman with whom defendant was living, violated RCW 18.83.110 (the patient-psychologist privilege) and RCW 69.54.070 (statements made by persons submitting themselves for drug or alcohol treatment should remain confidential). We disagreed, however, stating that these statutes should be construed in light of RCW 26.44. We said: State v. Fagalde, supra at 736-37. Similarly, we feel that the husband-wife privileges contained in RCW 5.60.060(1) are also subordinated to the overriding and paramount legislative intent to protect children from physical and sexual abuse. In the earlier case of State v. Lounsbery, 74 Wn.2d 659, 445 P.2d 1017 (1968), we held that the word "parent" as used in RCW 5.60.060(1) includes a stepparent. Again we *752 emphasized the intent of the legislature to protect children from child abusers. State v. Lounsbery, supra at 663. The word "guardian" standing alone does not suggest the necessity of some formal or blood relationship as defendant contends. "[It] has various meanings; it may be used to designate one or more of the various classes of guardians ... or it may be used in its broader and general sense." (Footnotes omitted.) 39 C.J.S. Guardian and Ward § 2 (1976). The same policy reasons which persuaded us to broadly construe the word "parent" in RCW 5.60.060(1) in State v. Lounsbery, supra, are just as applicable here. Generally speaking then, a guardian, like a parent, ordinarily connotes a person in loco parentis. 39 Am.Jur.2d Guardian and Ward § 65 (1968); 39 C.J.S. Guardian and Ward § 3 (1976). In State ex rel. Gilroy v. Superior Court, 37 Wn.2d 926, 933, 226 P.2d 882 (1951), this court had an occasion to consider the concept of in loco parentis. We observed there, quoting from 67 C.J.S. Parent and Child § 71 (1950), that the accepted definition of a person in loco parentis is (Footnotes omitted). Our analysis of the present case and State v. Lounsbery, supra, leads us to conclude that ordinarily the determination of whether a person is a parent or guardian, as those terms are used in RCW 5.60.060(1), will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Here, we think the trial court had sufficient evidence, albeit by affidavit, from which it could conclude that defendant became, even for the short time involved, a custodial guardian because he stood in loco parentis to Theraesa. Defendant and his wife voluntarily undertook duties that are normally characterized as parental: They agreed to let Theraesa sleep at their house, wake her up in the morning, provide her with breakfast, and make sure she went to school. In addition, we have no doubt that Theraesa, being only 7 years old, would trust, respect, and obey defendant and his wife principally because she had been left in their care by her own mother. Therefore, we affirm the trial court. WRIGHT, C.J., and ROSELLINI, UTTER, HOROWITZ, DOLLIVER, and HICKS, JJ., concur. STAFFORD and BRACHTENBACH, JJ., concur in the result.