Anderson v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 27 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | 29992. |
| Citation | 177 P.2d 83,27 Wn.2d 122 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. ANDERSON. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1
Action by Juva Anderson against Harold B. Anderson for divorce and for custody and support of minor children of the parties. On defendant's motion for modification of interlocutory and final decrees of divorce. From a judgment modifying the decrees, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Grays Harbor County; J. E. Stone, judge.
L.B Donley, of Aberdeen, for appellant.
Hogan & Adams, of Aberdeen, for respondent.
Plaintiff obtained an interlocutory decree and final decree of divorce from defendant during 1938. This decree gave her custody of two minor children and granted her one hundred fifty dollars a month for support of herself and two children until the children became twenty-one years old, providing in the event plaintiff remarried such support and maintenance should be reduced to eighty dollars a month. There was a further provision that in the event either child marries, his or her allowance for maintenance and support shall be automatically terminated.
The decree provided that defendant 'shall have the right and is hereby authorized to change the beneficiary under his insurance policies.' There was no provision requiring defendant to pay premiums on these insurance policies.
The decree granted defendant the right to reasonable visitations with the children. However, plaintiff took the children to British Columbia after obtaining authority from the court without notice to defendant. Plaintiff subsequently married her present husband and he adopted the two children of these parties in British Columbia.
Defendant brought these proceedings in the court below for modification of the interlocutory and final decree of divorce. The lower court held plaintiff entitled to judgment for the entire support money up to the date of her remarriage and from that date until the date of adoption she was entitled to eighty dollars per month, plus interest at six per cent. Subsequent to the date of adoption, she was entitled to nothing. The trial court based its decision upon the holding of this court in St. Germain v. St. Germain, 22 Wash.2d 744, 157 P.2d 981. Plaintiff has appealed.
The children of these parties were adopted in March, 1943, and our statute in effect at that time on the question of obligation of the natural parent after adoption is as follows:
In 1943, the legislature passed § 12, Laws of 1943, chapter 268, p. 833, Rem.Supp.1943, § 1699-13, which again relieved the natural parent from all legal obligations with respect to the adopted children:
The case of St. Germain v. St. Germain, supra, is directly in point. There, this court held that an order of adoption divests the natural parents of all legal rights and obligations in respect to the adopted child.
Under the decree, the award to plaintiff after the date of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pishue v. Pishue
...Respondent calls our attention to the recent case of St. Germain v. St. Germain, 22 Wash.2d 744, 157 P.2d 981, and Anderson v. Anderson, 27 Wash.2d 122, 177 P.2d 83, in which we approved decrees modifying payments due for support money by ordering those payments then due, from the date of t......
-
Ditmar v. Ditmar
...Wash. 597, 116 P. 2; Penney v. Penney, 151 Wash. 328, 275 P. 710; Troyer v. Troyer, 177 Wash. 88, 30 P.2d 963; Anderson v. Anderson, 27 Wash.2d 122, 177 P.2d 83, 6 A.L.R.2d 831; Van Tinker v. Van Tinker, 38 Wash.2d 390, 229 P.2d While Joan lived with her father, and after Ailene's emancipat......
-
Wheeler v. Wheeler, 31283.
... ... appellant ... This contention is ... answered by the case of Anderson v. Anderson, 27 ... Wash.2d 122, 177 P.2d 83, 85, 6 A.L.R.2d 831, in which we ... said: ... 'Appellant ... further ... ...
-
Bonn v. Bonn, 1231--II
...that such a party in default should not be heard in a divorce decree modification proceeding. Additionally, both in Anderson v. Anderson, 27 Wash.2d 122, 177 P.2d 83 (1947), and in Wheeler v. Wheeler, 37 Wash.2d 159, 222 P.2d 400 (1950), the court quoted from Jones, clearly and unequivocall......