Feldman's Welfare, In re, 46782

• Citation: 94 Wn.2d 244,615 P.2d 1290
• Decision Date: 28 August 1980
• Docket Number: No. 46782,46782
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Parties: In re the Welfare of Jodi FELDMAN, a Minor.

Page 244

94 Wn.2d 244

615 P.2d 1290

In re the Welfare of Jodi FELDMAN, a Minor.

No. 46782.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Aug. 28, 1980.

Levinson, Friedman, Vhugen, Duggan, Bland & Horowitz, Donald J. Horowitz, Seattle, for appellant.

Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Donald Foss, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, for respondent.

ROSELLINI, Justice.

This proceeding was brought in Superior Court by parents of a dependent child. They sought an adjudication that the Department of Social and Health Services (Department) should pay all or a portion of the medical bills which they incurred on behalf of the child during a period of time when she had been in the legal custody of the Department.

In May 1976, the Department had petitioned the court to declare Jodi Feldman a dependent child, under RCW 13.04.010(2), Laws of 1961, ch. 302, § 1, ¹ because she was evidencing need of medical treatment. The order was issued and legal custody of the child was declared to be in the Department. Jodi was suffering from mental illness and was in Fairfax Hospital at the time. The court approved her treatment at that hospital.

Although the Department also approved this program, it took no active part in it, and in fact assigned no caseworker to look into the welfare of the dependent. Her file was misplaced or overlooked for about a year, during which time she continued to receive medical treatment. Her parents made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the appropriate persons in the Department to obtain assistance with her problems, as well as financial assistance. In June 1977, the court entered a further order, continuing the child in legal custody of the Department but changing the authorized hospital from Fairfax to Overlake. At that time a caseworker was assigned, but the Department did not assume responsibility for the treatment of the child. Rather, it acquiesced in the program being followed by the parents.

In October 1977, the juvenile court, after a financial hearing, entered an order finding that the parents had exhausted their financial resources in providing treatment for Jodi and ordering the Department to provide treatment for its ward. There was no appeal from that order.

On December 21, 1977, a further financial hearing was held. The unchallenged findings show that the medical expenses of the child had exceeded $43,000, that $31,000 of this had been paid by the parents' insurance carrier, and that they themselves had paid about $2,000. A part of one bill had been forgiven by one of the hospitals. The father earned between $10,000 and $15,000 per year and the mother was unemployed. The family's assets did not equal its obligations. The court concluded that it would be proper and reasonable for the Department to pay the balance owing, and issued a decree accordingly. The unpaid balance was $9,652.

A significant unchallenged finding was that

(t)he usual and customary practice of the Department of Social and Health Services in such circumstances is to assign a caseworker to the child and to formulate a treatment plan . . .

. . . and thereafter bill the parents for such sums as the Department feels the parents can pay consistent with their financial circumstances.

The issue before us is: Do the courts of this state have authority to order the Department of Social and Health Services to pay medical expenses which have been incurred by a child who has been declared dependent upon the Department's petition, alleging that the child evidences need of medical treatment?

The question is one of statutory interpretation, and the Court of Appeals so treated it. The present statute, RCW 13.34.160, providing for financial responsibility of parents where a child is declared dependent, is a recodification of the one in effect at the time of the events involved here. It provides:

In any case in which the court shall find the child dependent, it may in the same or subsequent proceeding upon the parent or parents, guardian, or other person having custody of said child, being duly summoned or voluntarily appearing, proceed to inquire into the ability of such persons or person to support the child or contribute to its support, and if the court shall find such person or persons able to support the child or contribute thereto, the court may enter such order or decree as shall be according to equity in the premises, and may enforce the same by execution, or in any way in which a court of equity may enforce its decrees: (Irrelevant proviso omitted.)

RCW 13.34.170 provides for enforcement of the judgment against such parents.

It is obviously assumed in this statute that someone other than the parents will support the child, in whole or in part, during its dependency if the parents are unable to do so.

Formerly, the support of dependent children whose parents were unable to support them was, by statute, the responsibility of the county. Laws of 1913, ch. 160, § 8 contained the same language as RCW 13.34.160 with respect to the inquiry into the ability of the parents to pay and the enforcement of the support decree by execution or equitable means.

Through a series of statutory amendments, the responsibility of caring for dependent children was transferred from the county to the various agencies of the state, including the Department of Social and Health Services, where it now rests. See Laws of 1959, ch. 26, § 74.12.130; Laws of 1961, ch. 302, §§ 6-7; Laws of 1965, ch. 30, §§ 4, 5; Laws of 1967, ch. 137, § 1; Laws of 1969, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 138, § 1; Laws of 1975, 2d Ex.Sess., ch. 71, § 2; Laws of 1977, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 291, effective July 1, 1978, and Laws of 1979, ch. 155.

Laws of 1961, ch. 302, § 7, authorizing the court to enter an order of financial support, contained the following provision:

In any case where it appears that the parents, guardian, or other person having custody of the child is unable to support the child, or contribute to his support, the court shall give notice of such fact to the department of public assistance, and in all such cases the department shall be given an opportunity to appear and be heard. In event such child is ordered committed other than to the department of institutions, or the department of public assistance, the court may further order that the department of public assistance support, or contribute to the support of the child to the extent that the total of such support will not exceed the rate per month as from time to time may be fixed by said department for other children in similar foster care. If, under emergency circumstances, immediate placement in foster care is necessary, or desirable for the welfare of the child, the court may place a child directly with a foster parent or parents in a foster home not then having a certificate as such, and in such case the court shall notify the department of public assistance of such placement.

The department of public assistance shall promptly evaluate the home in relation to the needs of the child, report its findings to the court and keep the court informed of the progress of the child. In the event of such...