Rieke, Luvern

English

UW Law Digital Commons (University of Washington)

Washington Law Review Volume 30 Number 3 Washington Legislation-1955 8-1-1955 Domestic Relations Luvern Rieke University of Washington School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr  Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Luvern Rieke, Washington Legislation, Domestic Relations, 30 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J. 208 (1955). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol30/iss3/5 This Washington Legislation is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact cnyberg@uw.edu. WASHINGTON LAW REVIEWLarceny. The inflationary trend has finally caught up with the crime of petit larceny.RCW 9.54.090 (5) made property with the value of twenty-five dollars or less (witha few stated exceptions) the subject matter of petit larceny, which is a gross mis-demeanor. One could get quite a bit for his twenty-five dollars in 1909 when thelaw was passed! Chapter 97 raises the ante to seventy-five dollars, but adds an excep-tion which leaves the petit-grand dividing line at twenty-five dollars for propertyprocured by means of unauthorized checks.DOMESTIC RELATIONSAdoption. The adoption act has received its first major revisionsince 1947 by the enactment of Chapter 291, L. 1955. While the basicpattern of the earlier law, RCW 26.32, has been retained, changes ofsome extent have been made in all but four of the original sixteen sec-tions. An attorney contemplating an adoption under the new act shouldgive the amended provisions careful attention.The amendments of particular importance deal with the requirementof consent and notice. There are also significant additions requiringinformation concerning the religious persuasion of the parties, therevocability of consent for adoption, protection of minor parents, themandatory nature of hearing upon the report of the next friend, and theproblem of venue and jurisdiction. In general the statutory alterationshave the effect of giving greater control to the court and of decreasingthe instances in which a proceeding may be conducted without obtainingwritten consent of both parents of the person to be adopted.Sections 3 and 4 of the new law deal with the requirement ofconsent. Section 3 retains its original form, but has in actualitybeen substantially altered by the new provisions of section 4. The majorproblem concerning consent deals with obtaining permission of one orboth the child's parents. The five sub-sections of section 4 denominateinstances in which parental consent to the adoption will not be required.In each instance, save the new provision regarding the non-requirementof consent from the natural father of an illegitimate, the circumstancesin which consent of a parent may be omitted have been narrowed.Section 4 (2) is of special significance in this connection. Heretoforea parent who, in a divorce, annulment, or separate maintenance suit,was not given some right to custody or visitation was "deprived" andhis or her consent to a subsequent adoption was not required althoughthe court could, if it wished, hear such person." Under the new act theconsent of a parent, deprived of custodial rights but charged with an1 In re Gustafson, 28 Wn.2d 526, 183 P.2d 787 (1947).[AUGUSTWASHINGTON LEGISLATIbN--1955obligation of contributing to the child's support, must be obtained.Section 4 (5) is new. It provides that the consent of the naturalfather of an illegitimate is not necessary to give the court jurisdiction.A companion provision in section 5, also new to the code, provides thatsuch natural father is not entitled to notice of hearings in the adoptionproceeding. It further appears, from section 8 (5), that the naturalfather is not entitled to notice of a hearing in which the issue of legiti-macy of the child is to be determined. These provisions, while new inform, may not substantially change the law. The prior code requiredconsent from only the mother of an illegitimate.' It had been establishedthat consent of the natural father was not required.3 However, the gen-eral problem had been confused by peripheral issues. The embarrassingissue of whether the father of a child conceived or born during the exis-tence of a void marriage must consent to adoption4 need no longer ariseas such children are expressly made legitimate by the Divorce Act of1949.' The amended statute apparently has no bearing upon the diffi-cult practical process by which the legitimacy of issue born to a marriedwoman is resolved. Nor do the new provisions clarify the position ofthe husband of the mother in such an instance. It may be that the pre-sumption of legitimacy of a child conceived or born during wedlockwill continue to entitle the husband to notice.8The revocability of parental consent has raised some problems.7 Theamended act specifies the time and circumstances upon which consentbecomes irrevocable in section 7 (1). To protect a minor parent from ill-advised release of rights, the amended act requires appointment of aguardian ad litem. The child's next friend may also be charged with theduty of examining the reality of parental consent and, when so charged,it is mandatory that a hearing be held upon the report whether it isfavorable or adverse to the adoption.'By new language in sections 6 and 9, it is now required that informa-tion concerning the religion of the adopters and the person to beadopted, if known, be presented to the court. There is no indication thata disparity in religious conviction will make petitioning adopters ineli-gible, a factor which dearly distinguishes the Washington Act from the2 RCW 26.32.030 (3).8 Blakes Adoption, 21 Wn.2d 547, 151 P.2d 825 (1944).4 It had been held necessary., In re Hope, 30 Wn.2d 185, 191 P.2d 289 (1948).5 RCW 26.08.060.o In re a Minor, 29 Wn.2d 759, 189 P.2d 458 (1948).7 State ex rel. Towne v. Superior Court, 24 Wn.2d 441, 165 P.2d 862 (1946); In reNelms, 143 Wash. 242, 279 Pac. 748 (1929).8L. 55, C. 291, §§ 7(3), (9), (10).1955]WASHINGTON LAW REVIEWrecently litigated provision of the Massachusetts Adoption Law.9 Thedata concerning religion presumably is simply an element to be consi-dered in the general decision bearing-upon the propriety of the proposedadoption.A final observation should be made of a change in section 2. Thatsection provides who may adopt and where the proceedings shall beinitiated. It permits petition in either the county of the petitioner'sresidence or the county in which the person to be adopted is domiciled.The word "domiciled" has been substituted for the word "resides" usedin the prior act. There is substantial agreement among the authorities"that jurisdiction for adoption requires that either the adopter or personto be adopted is domiciled within the state. Prior to 1943 a non-domiciliary could not adopt in the Washington courts." By a 1943amendment to the code it was made possible for such persons to adopt,in Washington, if the petition was made in the "county in which theperson to be adopted resides."' 2 The present amendment makes expresswhat was heretofore probably intended. The effect of this amendmentupon venue for the proceeding is, of course, obvious.LuvRN RiE=JUVENILESThe governor is authorized to enter into interstate compacts with re-spect to cooperative supervision of delinquent juveniles, the apprehen-sion and return of delinquents who have escaped or absconded, and thereturn of nondelinquent run-away juveniles.'Any juvenile apprehended under the act must be brought before ajudicial officer in the state in which he is taken into custody before hecan be returned to the demanding state. The juvenile has the right toa hearing with counsel to test the legality of the proceeding if he sodesires, before being returned to the demanding state.Two provisions affecting parents and guardians of children before thejuvenile court were enacted. One permits the court to order parents andguardians, who are able, to contribute to the payment of the cost ofdetention of their child or ward, notwithstanding the fact that such9 Petitions of Goldman (Mass.) 121 N.E2d 843 (1954) Cert. Denied, 75 S. Ct. 363.10 GOODRICH, CONFLICT OF LAWS, 2nd Ed., West Publishing Company, § 142, p. 382.11 Knight v. Galloway, 42 Wash. 413, 85 Pac. 21 (1906) ; Platt v. Magagnini, 110Wash. 39, 187 Pac. 716 (1920).12 RCW 26.32.020.1 C. 284.[AUGUST

Domestic Relations

https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3127&amp;context=wlr

Domestic Relations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UW Law Digital Commons (University of Washington)