Court Opinion

ID: 9588459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:34:37.74446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:58.907897
License: Public Domain

Stafford, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the result of the majority opinion. Nevertheless, I do not agree with the means of statutory construction by which the opinion seeks to explain the definition of “child” or “children” used in the 1955 Firemen’s Relief and Pensions Act. The majority opinion has accomplished its end by retroactive use of the preamble to the 1969 act as well as by reliance upon totally independent and nonapplicable pension systems of other public employees. I feel that this method of statutory construction uses much too broad a brush and to this extent I am compelled to agree with the dissent.
However, the definition of “child or children” contained in the 1955 act is rendered ambiguous by the requirement that such must be “in the legal custody of” the fireman at the time of his death. (Italics mine.) As indicated by the majority opinion, a search of specialized works relating to insurance and pension plans discloses that the phrase “in the legal custody of” is not a term of art for actuarial purposes. Further, the most frequent definition of the italicized phrase is couched in terms of some type of legal or physical servitude. Obviously such would not be applicable to the instant statute. Yet, every word in the statute must be given meaning, if possible. We must presume that the legislature did not use superfluous language. State v. Lundquist, 60 Wn.2d 397, 374 P.2d 246 (1962). In all logic, the phrase “legal custody” must be defined in terms of the parent-child relationship.
In this case the parents were divorced and the father was ordered to pay child support. He was not deprived of child custody, but on the contrary was awarded reasonable rights of visitation. Although physical custody of the children *249may have rested with the mother, the father possessed a legal right of custody superior, to that of the rest of the world. He also owed his children a legal duty to support them.
As between parents, “legal custody” is always subject to change based upon the welfare of the children. Custody can be changed from one parent to the other as often as the exigencies of the situation.require. Further, it is recognized that upon the death of the parent having physical custody, the other parent has immediate right to the legal custody of the children as against the rest of the world. In short, while a parent’s legal custody is substantial in nature it is still temporary, dependent upon the welfare of the children and dependent upon-his surviving the other parent.
In such case it must be said that the parent who is not privileged to have immediate possession of the children is still vested with a substantial inchoate right to their legal custody.
Any other interpretation of the statute leads to absurd results. For example, if the trial court should award the legal custody of one child to the mother and of one to the father, as occasionally happens, only the child currently living with the father would be entitled to a pension. The sibling would receive nothing. But, should the court revise the placement of the children, the right to pension benefits would be reversed. Certainly, the legislature could not have intended that the definition of “legal custody” should rest upon the tenuous luck of mere temporary placement.
I agree that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the pension board directed to grant the benefits prayed for by the minor children.
Hamilton, C.J., and Wright, J., concur with Stafford, J.