586 P.2d 516 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1978), 5834, West v. Department of Social and Health Services
Judge | JAMES and SWANSON, JJ., concur. |
Parties | Elizabeth C. WEST, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES of the State of Washington, Respondent. |
Citation | 21 Wn.App. 577,586 P.2d 516 |
Date | 16 October 1978 |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Docket Number | 5834-I. |
Page 516
Page 517
Elizabeth West appeals from a judgment affirming an administrative decision of the Department of Social and Health Services. [21 Wn.App. 578]
After appropriate consultation, West placed her two daughters in a child placement agency licensed by the Department of Social and Health Services on August 7, 1974 and signed a form that contained the following statement:
I (WE) AM AWARE THAT MY CHILD IS TO BE PLACED IN FOSTER CARE, BY COURT ORDER OR BY MY REQUEST AND THAT FINANCIAL SERVICES OF DSHS WILL CONTACT ME IN RELATION TO FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF MY CHILD.
Exhibit No. 3. On June 13, 1975, West was served with a "Notice and Finding of Financial Responsibility" pursuant to RCW 74.20A.055, which stated (1) that she owed the Department of Social and Health Services $1,300 for child support payments from the date of placement to date, and (2) that she would incur an obligation beginning in June 1975 of an additional $130 per month as her share of the cost of the support of her children in the foster home. Three days after receipt of the notice West removed her children from the foster home and on June 26, 1975, requested an administrative hearing. It was held August 20, 1975. On September 12, 1975, pursuant to that hearing, West was ordered to pay $1,890 1 to the Department. West appealed the order to the Superior Court which affirmed. She thereafter appealed to this court.
West objects to the order on two grounds: (1) the Department's actions violated her constitutional right to due process by depriving her of property without adequate notice and the opportunity for a hearing at a meaningful time, and (2) the Department is estopped from enforcing the obligation.
We recognize that a natural parent is under a duty to provide support for
Page 518
his or her children. In re Hudson, 13 [21 Wn.App. 579] Wash.2d 673, 693, 126 P.2d 765 (1942). But, while the primary obligation of support is upon the child's natural parents, State v. Wood, 89 Wash.2d 97, 100, 569 P.2d 1148 (1977), the obligation can be reduced or relieved by State intervention. The question here is whether the Department is estopped to deny that it relieved West of her parental obligation from the date of the foster home placement until her receipt of notice.
Equitable estoppel may be applied against the State, even when it is acting in a governmental capacity, if necessary to prevent manifest injustice, and the exercise of governmental powers will not be impaired as a result. Shafer v. State, 83 Wash.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial