Court Opinion

ID: 9790211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:49:00.769105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:27.167590
License: Public Domain

Munson, J.
Lyle Hansen appeals the dismissal of his motion to vacate default judgment in favor of Sandy Hayward in a paternity action.
Hayward initiated this paternity action in 1977, alleging that Hansen was the natural father of Alisha Hayward, born May 6, 1977. Barbara Hayward, the child's maternal grandmother, was appointed guardian ad litem for Alisha at that time; as guardian ad litem, the record does not reflect she has taken any legal steps on behalf of Alisha nor signed any documents.
Hansen was personally served and an attorney entered an appearance on his behalf; the attorney Withdrew in March 1978. Hayward moved for default; the matter was continued when Hansen asked for additional time to obtain other counsel. Hayward again moved for default judgment in September 1978; a copy of notice of intent to take default judgment was sent to Hansen by certified mail, but the letter was returned marked "refused." Attempts to notify Hansen by telephone were also unsuccessful. Thus, a default judgment was entered October 4, 1978. Fifteen months later, on January 2, 1980, Hansen moved for vacation of the default judgment pursuant to CR 60(b); the motion was denied and this appeal ensued.
Hansen first argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to find paternity in this case because Alisha was never served and therefore never brought before *402the court as a party. We disagree.
RCW 26.26.090 states:
The child shall be made a party to the action. If he is a minor he shall be represented by his general guardian or a guardian ad litem appointed by the court. The child's mother or father may not represent the child as guardian or otherwise.
In State v. Douty, 92 Wn.2d 930, 603 P.2d 373 (1979), the court found the failure to serve the child in a paternity action deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. However, in Douty, the paternity action was brought by the State. Here, Alisha's mother, Sandy Hayward, initiated this action. At least until such time as the action was filed, thus invoking RCW 26.26.090, Sandy Hayward could and did function as Alisha's representative. She existed in that capacity long enough to bring the child before the court as a party. At that point, the court acquired continuing jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 4.28.020, which states:
From the time of the commencement of the action by service of summons, or by the filing of a complaint, or as otherwise provided, the court is deemed to have acquired jurisdiction and to have control of all subsequent proceedings.
Once the complaint was filed, the court had an obligation to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the child in further proceedings. RCW 26.26.090.1 Clearly, the court had personal jurisdiction over the child. To interpret the requirements of the Uniform Parentage Act in any other fashion would be to make nugatory the provision of RCW 26.26.060(1)(a) which states:
(1) A child, his natural mother, or a man presumed to be his father under RCW 26.26.040 may bring an action
(a) at any time for the purpose of declaring the existence of the father and child relationship presumed under RCW 26.26.040; . . .
(Italics ours.) Since the mother may bring an action, and *403since in doing so in her representative capacity she brings the child before the court, the child has been made a complaining party. This satisfies the requirements of RCW 26.26.090.
The argument that the child must be personally served in the action is, we think, erroneous. The child is the instigating party. It is often said that parties may not consent to the court's subject matter jurisdiction, 2 L. Orland, Wash. Prac. § 32, at 54 (1972), but here it is personal jurisdiction over the child which triggers the court's jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 26.26.090. Personal jurisdiction may also be acquired by consent, see, e.g., RCW 4.28.020; 2 L. Orland, Wash. Prac. § 10, at 7 (1972). We therefore find no merit in Hansen's claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction;2 we will proceed to his other assignments of error.
Hansen next argues that he should have been arrested pursuant to RCW 26.26.070 before a default judgment could be entered against him. RCW 26.26.070(1) states in part:
The petitioner in an action to determine the existence of the father and child relationship may petition the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of the alleged father at any stage of the proceeding . . .
The use of the word "may" clearly indicates that the use of this statute is at the discretion of the petitioner or the court; furthermore, if the petitioner elects to seek a warrant, she must then show:
(a) The alleged father will not appear in response to a summons; or (b) the summons cannot be served; or
(c) the alleged father is likely to leave the jurisdiction; or
(d) the safety of the petitioner would be endangered if the warrant did not issue.
RCW 26.26.070(2). Such a showing would have been difficult if not impossible in this case, since Hansen had already appeared by counsel and in person, did not seem likely to *404leave the jurisdiction, and did not threaten the safety of the petitioner. In any event, the issuance of an arrest warrant is at the discretion of the trial court. The statute also provides that the father shall be released on his own recognizance pending trial unless the court determines that such recognizance will not reasonably assure his appearance. RCW 26.26.070(4) and (6). Nothing in the statutes suggests that arrest is a precondition to pursuing a default judgment; to the contrary, arrest appears to be an extraordinary remedy, intended for use only in those situations set forth in the statutes. We find no error.
Hansen argues the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the default judgment. In his motion to vacate, Hansen alleged five bases in support of his CR 60(b) motion: (1) mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, CR 60(b)(1); (2) fraud, misrepresentation and misconduct, CR 60(b)(4); (3) unavoidable casualty or misfortune preventing the appellant from defending his action, CR 60(b)(9); (4) misunderstanding of the nature and extent of the proceedings brought against him, CR 60(b)(ll); and (5) "[i]n view of the nature of the action (i.e., paternity)," CR 60(b)(ll).
Because the motion to vacate was brought more than 1 year after the order was entered, the grounds of mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect are foreclosed. See CR 60(b). Fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct and unavoidable casualty or misfortune are grounds which find no support in the record, and no affidavit asserting facts supporting these grounds appears in the record. See CR 60(e)(1).
As to misunderstanding the nature and extent of proceedings brought against him, Hansen relies on the fact that his former attorney had withdrawn as attorney of record on March 21, 1978, but Hansen did not learn of this until the time of the default judgment motion. However, the former attorney filed an affidavit indicating he personally notified the appellant of his intent to withdraw and that notice of intent to withdraw was sent to Hansen on *405March 6, 1978. Furthermore, Hansen personally appeared at the first hearing on the motion for default judgment to request a continuance. In short, there is no credence to his claim that he did not know that his lawyer had withdrawn. Finally, the fact that this is a paternity action does not confer special status upon his motion to vacate a default judgment.
A motion to vacate a default judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, which will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Commercial Courier Serv., Inc. v. Miller, 13 Wn. App. 98, 107, 533 P.2d 852 (1975). The moving party must establish, through affidavits, facts constituting a defense to the default judgment; Hansen has failed to do so. His supposed absolute defense of sterility is in fact considerably lacking in probative value. The fact that he is probably unable to father a child 3 years after the conception of the child in this action has no bearing on his fertility at the time of conception. Furthermore, Hansen admits to a sperm count of 15,200,000 per cc. The minimum sperm count necessary to impregnate is 10 million per cc. See Cochran v. Cochran, 2 Wn. App. 514, 468 P.2d 729 (1970). Thus, Hansen was not sterile; he was merely less fertile. The trial court abuses its discretion only when no reasonable person would have ruled in the manner pursued by the trial court. In re Marriage of Nicholson, 17 Wn. App. 110, 114, 561 P.2d 1116 (1977). We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion.
Lastly, Hansen offers no valid excuse or justification for a 15-month delay in seeking to vacate the judgment. His counsel candidly stated, in response to questions from the bench during oral argument before this court, that his services were not sought until a criminal prosecution for nonsupport and a Department of Social and Health Services subrogation action for back support were instituted. These actions precipitated the motion to.vacate. Hansen's present predicament stems from his own inaction; no justification to vacate has been shown.
*406The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Green, J., concurs.

RCW 74.20.310, eliminating the need for a guardian ad litem, was passed in 1979, long after this action was begun and after the default judgment was entered.

RCW 4.28.080 relates to the service of a summons. Subsection (11) speaks to service against a minor under 14 years of age, not by such minor.