Opinion ID: 2590262
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Children under Article IX

Text: Regarding the definition of children under article IX, our constitution provides little guidance, leaving the term undefined. [10] Consequently, we must look elsewhere for guidance. At trial, the court held that the basic education act has defined children for the purposes of education, including article IX, as those persons up to age 22. The trial court noted that the Legislature retains the right to restrict the age definition for children for educational purposes and may change their definition as they see fit. CP at 2222. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that as long as the Legislature defines children as persons up to age 22, the State's constitutional duty to provide educational services runs to persons up to age 22 as well. CP at 2222, 2224. We disagree and find the trial court's reliance on the basic education act problematic. First, the basic education act does not actually define the term children for purposes of article IX. The Legislature merely identifies the age group to which the statute applies. Furthermore, the statute does not actually use the term children as is found in article IX. See RCW 28A.150.220(5) (the basic education act shall be accessible to all students who are five years of age ... and less than twenty-one years of age....) (emphasis added). Second, although the legislation declares that the basic education act complies with article IX, it does not declare education to age 21 or 22 is constitutionally required. See RCW 28A.150.200. [11] This is clearly demonstrated by the Legislature's subsequent enactment of chapter 28A.193 RCW. As with the basic education act, the Legislature found that chapter 28A.193 RCW satisfied its constitutional duty to provide an education under article IX. See RCW 28A.193.005. [12] However, unlike the basic education act, the Legislature found that providing for the education of DOC inmates up to age 18, not 21, satisfied its constitutional duty. RCW 28A.193.030(3)-(4); RCW 72.09.460(2). We presume that if the Legislature actually intended to create a constitutional definition of children in the basic education act, it would have been constrained by that definition when it enacted chapter 28A.193 RCW. See State v. Fagalde, 85 Wash.2d 730, 736, 539 P.2d 86 (1975) (court's presume Legislature intended consistency between statutes). Finally, even if the Legislature had explicitly defined the term children under article IX, its definition would not be controlling. The ultimate power to interpret, construe and enforce the constitution of this State belongs to the judiciary. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 90 Wash.2d 476, 496, 585 P.2d 71 (1978) (citing cases). Having found that the basic education act does not provide the operative definition of the term children under article IX, we examine other statutes to determine the common understanding of the term children in Washington. Under current law, only individuals under age 18 are required to attend school. RCW 28A.225.010 (children up to age 18 required to attend school, subject to certain exceptions). This statute supports the idea that individuals are treated like adults once they hit age 18, as choice is commonly recognized as a hallmark of adulthood. Furthermore, as already noted, chapter 28A.193 RCW's definition of children counteracts any argument that the Legislature intended to establish a child age-limit regarding education above age 18. RCW 28A.193.030(3)-(4); RCW 72.09.460(2) (act mandates that DOC inmates receive education until age 18). Finally, although not within the education context, individuals over age 18 are generally emancipated and are able to marry without parental consent, to execute a will, to vote, to enter into a legally binding contract, to make medical decisions about their own care and those of their issue, and to sue and be sued. See RCW 26.28.010, .015(1)-(6) (under Age of Majority chapter, all persons shall be deemed and taken to be full age for all purposes at the age of eighteen years[,] unless otherwise provided). [13] These statutes further demonstrate that the common understanding of the definition of children for most purposes in Washington, including education, includes individuals up to age 18. Consequently, we hold that the term children under article IX includes individuals up to age 18. [14] The State raises the alternative argument that whatever statutory or constitutional rights to an education the inmates may have had, they disqualified themselves through their own criminal conduct. Specifically, the State contends that by engaging in conduct which compels their removal from the school system, the inmates have, by their own conduct and not through any failing of the State, disqualified themselves from the educational opportunities provided them. [15] We find the State's arguments unpersuasive and find it unnecessary to deal with this issue further since the Legislature has seen fit to provide an educational program to DOC inmates. Having determined that the State is constitutionally required to provide educational services to children incarcerated in DOC facilities up to age 18, we need to determine whether the State is meeting its obligation. Consequently, we next examine chapter 28A.193 RCW to determine whether it satisfies article IX. We hold that it does.