Court Opinion

ID: 9539040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:45:46.263723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:24.548203
License: Public Domain

Dolliver, C.J.
(dissenting) — Miguel Santos voluntarily, indeed eagerly, without reservation, fraud or mistake, asserted he was the father of Ambrosia, a child born to Vanessa Louise Montes. He stipulated to the judgment and order in the paternity proceedings. In those proceedings, there was no requirement a guardian for the child be appointed. RCW 26.26.090; RCW 74.20.310. Subsequently, following a quarrel with Vanessa Montes more than 1 year after the birth of Ambrosia, Santos again returned to court to claim constitutional error because an independent guardian was not appointed for Ambrosia in the paternity action. By assertion and without analysis, the majority adopts this view.
With the end of his passion for Montes, Santos now seeks to brand illegitimate the child whose paternity he once embraced. To release himself from what no doubt now appear to be unwanted paternal obligations, financial and otherwise, Santos has discovered the doctrine of "the best interests of the child". To say that under these circumstances it is the "best interests of the child" being served is hypocritical at worst and disingenuous at best. I find it reprehensible to speak of the "best interests of the child" when it is clear from the record the only interests of any concern to Santos are his own. His relationship with Montes having ended, Santos also wishes to shuck off his legal ties to and obligations for Ambrosia.
*152Miguel Santos urged the court to declare him the father; the court complied. The best interests of the child are best served by maintaining this relationship.
Dore, Andersen, and Durham, JJ., concur with Dolli-ver, J.
Reconsideration denied September 23, 1985.