Court Opinion

ID: 9595642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:42:27.459562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:29.736881
License: Public Domain

Horowitz, J.
(dissenting) — Petitioning mother’s sole assignment of error raises the controlling question whether the trial court had jurisdiction over defendant father to enter the child custody findings, conclusions, and decree as proposed by the petitioner mother. The trial court held by virtue of May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 97 L. Ed. 1221, 73 S. Ct. 840 (1953), it lacked jurisdiction to award child *725custody to the mother for want of jurisdiction in personam over the father.
The majority, in the instant case, though highly critical of May v. Anderson, supra, does not refuse to follow it. Instead it holds there is sufficient evidence in the record here to show the trial court had jurisdiction over the father by virtue of the long-arm statute. RCW 4.28.185 (1) (b). Under that statute jurisdiction may be acquired over the nonresident, nondomiciliary father upon proof inter alia the father had theretofore committed a “tortious act within the state” so as to permit relief to be awarded “as to any cause of action arising from the doing of said acts.” Accordingly, the majority awards relief to the mother as if the trial court had in personam jurisdiction over the father.
I cannot find record support for the view the father committed a “tortious act within the state” so as to enable in personam jurisdiction over the father to be obtained pursuant to the long-arm statute. If RCW 4.28.185(1) (b) is inapplicable, it is still necessary to decide whether the trial court was nevertheless required to enter petitioner’s proposed findings, conclusions, and decree because their entry would not impair the father’s right to petition for an award of custody of his minor children.
First the matter of record support as claimed in the majority opinion must be considered. The majority argues that an evidentiary inference can and should be drawn from petitioner’s affidavit filed in the cause on January 6, 1975, to the effect that “the father has not provided for the support of the children” and that the inference so drawn is “a convincing, if not inescapable evidentiary inference” and is “ample evidence.” It must be remembered the tort of nonsupport of the children alone is insufficient, the statute requires that the tortious act occur “within this state.” RCW 4.28.185(1) (b).
The record shows the father, a resident and domiciliary of Idaho, delivered the children to the mother in Spokane, Washington on December 26, 1974, during the Christmas holiday season. The father’s purpose in delivering the chil*726dren is not shown in the record. The majority agrees there may not be “sufficient evidence in the record to indicate that the father had delivered the children to the mother in Washington for the purpose of abandoning them.” The opinion also states “[t]he record does not reflect where the parents lived prior to the time the children were turned over to the mother.” Thus, there is no evidence in the record that the father failed to support the children in Washington prior to December 26, 1974. The remaining period covered in the affidavit relied on in the majority opinion is the 8-day period from December 27, 1974, to January 3,1975, during which time the children were physically present with their mother in the state of Washington. It is therefore necessary to find the father failed to support the children in Washington during or in respect of the 8-day period.
In petitioner’s complaint against defendant father, filed on the same day her affidavit was filed, petitioner states under oath that “$10 per child per month” was a reasonable sum to be paid by defendant for child support “considering [defendant’s] disability.” The nature of the disability is not described. Petitioner in that complaint then claimed the child custody support payments in the amount she has stated were “reasonable.” Eight thirty-first’s of $10 per month is a little less than $2.58 per child or a total of $10.32 for the four children. Can it be said the father committed the tort of nonsupport in Washington in the sum of $2.58 per child during the 8-day period? I think not.
It is true, that if a father fails to make a support payment on a due date, such as one ordered by a court decree, the father commits an act of nonsupport. Here, however, there was no due date because no decree or statute fixed a particular date for the payment of support and maintenance. There was not even a request for payment during that 8-day period or any refusal to make a payment during that 8-day period. The affidavit does not state that in delivering the children to the mother on December 26, 1974, the father abandoned or intended to abandon the children in *727Washington with a view to no longer supporting them. An unexplained nonpayment during the 8-day period, especially when as next shown a substantial payment was in fact received by the mother between December 27, 1974, and January 3, 1975, negates any inference that the father failed to provide support either on a particular day, or to use the language of the Model Penal Code, “persistently [failed] to provide support which he can provide . . .” Model Penal Code § 230.5 (1974).
Petitioner’s affidavit states that petitioner received:
From approximately November 22, 1974 to December 27,1974: $300 per capita.
From December 27, 1974 to present: $400. The unexpended portion of Joseph and Dale Miller’s per capita payments; These funds could only be used for necessities for the boys and they were so used.
These payments appear to have been made for the benefit of the children. There is no statement that nothing remained for the children’s use from the $300 per capita payment or the $400 paid in the 8-day period following December 26, 1974. The affidavit does not state the person from whom the payment was received. For all the affidavit shows, the payment may have been made by the father after receipt in connection with some payment program resulting from his disability, government grant or assistance, or otherwise.
There is indeed a reference in petitioner’s affidavit to “My assets: cash on hand $15.00.” This reference, however, appears to refer to the mother’s own funds as distinguished from the funds for the children, considering that the purpose of the affidavit was to show petitioner’s inability to pay for the litigation out of her own funds so that she might be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
The truth of the matter is, the affidavit was never intended to address itself to the question of nonsupport by the father as a basis for rendering the long-arm statute applicable. Petitioner never claimed below that the long-arm statute applied to confer jurisdiction over the father.
*728Indeed in her opening and reply briefs on appeal, necessarily based on the trial record, she made no such claim, notwithstanding argument in respondent’s brief the long-arm statute was inapplicable. Considering: (1) the lack of evidence of any intention by the father to refuse or repudiate his obligation of providing support in Washington for his children; (2) both the exceedingly small amount involved and the very short durational period of 8 days on which to base an inference of nonsupport in Washington; (3) the mother’s receipt of per capita payments for the children, the last one described being made in the 8-day period, with no claim or showing in the affidavit that they were not sent by or on account of the father for the use of the children; and, (4) without any claim or showing in the affidavit that no balance remained from the payments so made for the use of the children, I see no “evidentiary inference” the father failed to support his children in the 8-day period so that it could be fairly said the father committed a “tortious act within this state” within the meaning of Washington’s long-arm statute. Accordingly, I cannot agree the claimed “evidentiary inference” — which is basic to the majority’s argument and the relief it authorizes— may properly be drawn from the petitioner’s affidavit.
The theory upon which the case was tried below appears to be the court had no in personam jurisdiction over the father so as to bind him to the decree. Petitioner’s proposed findings, conclusions, and decree not only do not assert jurisdiction over the father, they appear to be drawn on the assumption the court lacked jurisdiction over the father. No provision for child support is made and a proposed conclusion of law provides that, in an appropriate motion for child custody, the father would not be required to show “a change of circumstances.” Proposed conclusion of law No. 2. Had petitioner believed the court did have jurisdiction she would have sought the relief authorized by the majority opinion rather than the more limited relief provided by her own proposed findings, conclusions, and decree.
It does not follow, however, that because the trial court *729lacked in personam jurisdiction over the father that it lacked jurisdiction to enter the kind of findings, conclusions, and decree proposed by the mother. Before explaining the reasons for this view, it is necessary to explain why May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 97 L. Ed. 1221, 73 S. Ct. 840 (1953) should not prevent their entry.
In May v. Anderson, supra, a Wisconsin court awarded custody of the couple’s children (present in Ohio) to the father, domiciled and resident in Wisconsin as the result of a divorce action instituted by him there. Jurisdiction over the mother was sought by personal service upon her in Ohio of a copy of the Wisconsin summons and petition. The Wisconsin statute, however, authorized such service in an action for divorce but made no mention of its availability in a proceeding for child custody. The father, relying upon the Wisconsin decree, commenced a proceeding in Ohio, where the mother and the children were residing, challenging her right to retain custody of the children. The Ohio court held it was bound by the Wisconsin decree because the children had never lost their Wisconsin domicile. The mother appealed to the United States Supreme Court which reversed.
The rationale used by the Supreme Court in holding the Ohio court could not give full faith and credit to the Wisconsin decree is not altogether clear. On the one hand, May v. Anderson has been interpreted as holding only that Wisconsin, in the absence of the physical presence of the children, had no jurisdiction to enter a decree affecting the custody of those children and that therefore Ohio was not bound to honor the Wisconsin decree. Hazard, May v. Anderson: Preamble to Family Law Chaos, 45 Va. L. Rev. 379, 383 (1959). On this interpretation May v. Anderson is distinguishable from the instant case, because here the petitioning mother and her children were both domiciled and physically present in Washington at and prior to the time the custody petition was filed.
On the other hand, the opinion also appears to hold that in the absence of personal jurisdiction over the mother, the Wisconsin court did not have jurisdiction to enter a decree *730of permanent custody in favor of the father, regardless of the domicile or physical presence of the children. May v. Anderson, supra at 532-34; Hazard, supra at 384.
The May v. Anderson decision has been severely criticized for its apparent disregard of the welfare of the children and for its failure to adopt a rule parallel to that adopted in divorce cases brought by a domiciliary of the forum state against a nondomiciliary spouse.
The majority decision in May v. Anderson focuses on one aspect of the custody problem and entirely overlooks all others. By drawing the analogy to rights of property the Court emphasizes its assumption that the only problem in custody is to adjudicate parental rights in a child, just as the divorce court must sometimes adjudicate the rights of spouses in a house or an automobile. No thought is given to the protection of the child, to the fact that the courts act in these cases as parens patriae, or to the possibility of enforcing any decree granted. No reference is made to the extensive literature on custody jurisdiction or to the various suggested bases for jurisdiction.
. . . In short, the case of May v. Anderson is an
aberration which ought to be overruled at the earliest opportunity.
(Footnotes omitted.) H. Clark, Law of Domestic Relations 324-26 (1968); see Note, 38 Minn. L. Rev. 273, 275 (1954). Concerning its failure to adopt a rule parallel to that adopted in ex parte divorces, it has been stated:
Why is it that personal jurisdiction is not required to sever a spouse’s marital ties to his mate but is required to sever (or curtail) a parent’s parental ties to his child? There is no logical basis at all on which to differentiate so sharply between the two situations.
(Footnote omitted.) Hazard, May v. Anderson: Preamble to Family Law Chaos, 45 Va. L. Rev. 379, 387 (1959).
May v. Anderson did not involve the use of a long-arm statute for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction over the absent parent. The absent mother, it is true, was served with process but the summons by publication statute made no provision for such service in child custody cases. Ac*731cordingly, the court applied due process principles and held that the absent parent (mother) was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before permanent custody of the children was taken from her. Had the statute made provision for such service of process, jurisdiction would have been obtained and a different question would have been presented.
In the instant case, the majority opinion makes no claim that RCW 4.28.100 (the publication of summons statute) or RCW 26.09.180(2) (notice to a parent in a child custody proceeding) applies. The majority holds the long-arm statute applies because the unmarried father failed to discharge his duty of child support in Washington and therefore committed a tortious act therein. I agree such a duty of support exists. See RCW 26.20.030; RCW 26.24.090; Kaur v. Chawla, 11 Wn. App. 362, 522 P.2d 1198 (1974). I disagree, however, with the majority’s claim the father failed to support his children in Washington so as to be subject to the long-arm statute.
There is Washington case support, direct and indirect, for the view that pursuant to the petition filed, the court has jurisdiction to determine the child custody issue as to the mother and her minor children based at least on their domicile, and certainly on their domicile and physical presence. In re Marriage of Saucido, 85 Wn.2d 653, 538 P.2d 1219 (1975); Chandler v. Chandler, 56 Wn.2d 399, 353 P.2d 417 (1960); In re Rankin, 76 Wn.2d 533, 458 P.2d 176 (1969); In re Mullins, 26 Wn.2d 419, 174 P.2d 790 (1946); State ex rel. Ranken v. Superior Court, 6 Wn.2d 90, 106 P.2d1082 (1940).
A court is not powerless to enter a custody decree binding only upon the mother and her children based on their domicile and physical presence in this state. Such a decree is not a nullity. In referring to May v. Anderson, supra, it has been correctly stated that: *732B. Currie, Justice Traynor and the Conflict of Laws, in Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws 629, 678 (1963).
*731The opinion of the Court protects only the rights of parents, and the domiciliary court is justified in asserting jurisdiction to settle the question of custody (subject to modification) for all other purposes.
*732That the father’s custodial rights are not impaired can be readily demonstrated. A person not made party to a proceeding, and not in privity with a party, is not bound by that decree. In re Peterson’s Estate, 74 Wn.2d 91, 93, 442 P.2d 980 (1968); Glandon v. Searle, 68 Wn.2d 199, 202, 412 P.2d 116 (1966); Restatement of Judgments § 93 (1942); 50 C. J.S. Judgments § 820 (1947). The father here, of course, was not in privity with the mother in the custody proceeding because each had a separate legal right to the children’s custody. See RCW 26.28.110.
Moreover, courts have upheld decrees affecting the status of adopted or dependent children even in the absence of one or both parents as parties before the court.
In Beatty v. Davenport, 45 Wash. 555, 559, 88 P. 1109 (1907), the court upheld an adoption upon the consent of the father when there was no notice to the mother:
The decree of adoption was binding only upon the parties before the court and their privies. It was not binding upon respondent because she was neither a party nor a privy to it. The court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to determine her rights. . . . Such parties may be heard upon questions of both law and fact as fully as though no judgment had been rendered.
In DeWitt v. Brooks, 143 Tex. 122, 182 S.W.2d 687 (1944), a child was adjudged a dependent child in a proceeding in which neither parent was given notice. The court held the judgment was valid, subject only to the parents’ right to a full hearing on the child’s dependency:
The power of the State to so adjudge a child to be dependent where'the facts warrant it, without notice to the parents where they are inaccessible, must necessarily exist because of the exigencies of the case. Children of tender years who have been abandoned or neglected and are in distress cannot wait for attention indefinitely while search is being made throughout the country for their parents and service is had on them . . .
But where the parents are without notice of the pro*733ceedings, they must be allowed a full hearing in a subsequent proceeding on the issue of whether sufficient facts existed as to authorize the entry of the judgment of dependency.
DeWitt v. Brooks, supra at 127-28; accord, Allen v. Williams, 31 Idaho 309, 171 P. 493 (1918); Farnham v. Pierce, 141 Mass. 203, 6 N.E. 830 (1886).
The decree in the instant case would bind only the parties before the court — the mother and children.
Proposed conclusion of law No. 2 reads:
Petitioner and respondent’s fitness to assume care and custody of the above-named minor children has been determined by default and testimony of the petitioner. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, respondent may by appropriate motion in this Court seek modification of the terms of the decree to be entered herein, without having to show a change of circumstances.
This conclusion was not expressly included in the proposed decree, perhaps as a result of inadvertence. However, Washington case law prior to the enactment of RCW 26.09 enables the proposed decree, if entered, to be construed to permit the matter of custody to be considered on a de novo basis whenever both parties first appear before this court. In re Rankin, supra at 536-37; White v. White, 24 Wn.2d 52, 57, 163 P.2d 137 (1945); Weber v. Weber, 6 Wn. App. 722, 726, 496 P.2d 576 (1972). The factors bearing on child custody would be those set forth in RCW 26.09.190 rather than those set forth in RCW 26.09.260, dealing with modification of a prior custody decree.
When entered, the proposed decree is valid as to the mother and children. It may be enforced by contempt proceedings against one who violates the mother’s custody of the children awarded by the court. Analogical support for this view is furnished by cases involving the use of the contempt remedy in enforcing temporary or permanent injunction orders against a nonparty with notice of the order. RCW 7.20.010(5); State v. Mecca Twin Theater & Film Exch., 82 Wn.2d 87, 507 P.2d 1165 (1973). A father who seeks to obtain possession of the children must seek redress *734through the courts and not by self-help. See State v. Perkins, 88 Conn. 360, 91 A. 265, 267 (1914).
In sum, the proposed custody decree, because it binds only the mother and children, does not prejudice the rights of the father in any way and therefore does not deny the father due process. See Allen v. Williams, supra. Indeed, the decree is consistent with the father’s duty to provide care, education, and support for his minor children. RCW 26.20.030; 26.24.090; Kaur v. Chawla, supra. If the father wishes to have his custody rights adjudicated, he may obtain such an adjudication without showing “changed circumstances.” The trial court, therefore, may enter the findings, conclusions, and child custody decree as presented for entry. The decree, if necessary, may be enforced by the use of contempt proceedings.
Such a decree would not prevent the mother, if she wishes to do so, proceeding against the father for child support, based upon a showing of nonsupport by the father, that would enable the court to obtain in personam jurisdiction over the father under the long-arm statute. In that same proceeding or independently thereof and on the same jurisdictional grounds a mother may obtain a child custody decree binding upon the father upon a proper showing pursuant to the provisions of RCW 26.09.190.
The oral testimony given in support of the petition is not in the record on appeal. There is no claim the findings (including a finding “petitioner is a fit and proper person to be awarded care, custody, and control of said minor children”) are not supported by the evidence. I would reverse with direction to enter petitioner’s proposed findings, conclusions, and decree awarding custody of her minor children to the mother.
Stafford, C.J., and Utter, J., concur with Horowitz, J.