Green v. Green

• Decision Date: 26 March 1957
• Docket Number: No. 37420,37420
• Citation: 1957 OK 70,309 P.2d 276
• Parties: Van Buren GREEN, Plaintiff in Error, v. Blanche GREEN, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 276

309 P.2d 276

1957 OK 70

Van Buren GREEN, Plaintiff in Error, v. Blanche GREEN, Defendant in Error.

No. 37420.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 26, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The issue of all marriages null in law, or dissolved by divorce, are legitimate.

2. The supervision of the courts over the custody and welfare of children is of itself equitable and not strictly legal in nature.

3. By statute and common law the father is charged with the support of his minor, unmarried, legitimate child.

4. Where an action is filed in California under its Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act and certified to the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, the provisions of the Oklahoma Support Act of 1953 will apply and be enforced.

Appeal from District Court of Oklahoma County; A. P. Van Meter, Judge.

An action commenced by Blanche Green as plaintiff in the Superiod Court of the County of Los Angeles, California, under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act and certified to the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, where judgment was entered for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Roger H. Swan, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Granville Scanland, County Atty., Oklahoma County, Marian P. Opala, Asst. County Atty., Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, Ernest S. Roll, Dist. Atty., Los Angeles County, Harold O. Pressman, Asst. Dist. Atty., Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant in error.

HALLEY, Justice.

Parties will be referred to according to their positions in the trial court or by name.

Blanche Green and Van Buren Green were married in Dallas, Texas, on September 2, 1951. The parties have not been divorced although Blanche Green did file an action for divorce. On September 3, 1954, Blanche Green gave birth to a child Sylvia Gayle Green.

At the time of his marriage to Blanche Green, said Van Buren Green was married to and undivorced from Hazel Green to whom he was married on July 6, 1942.

On March 11, 1955, Blanche Green filed an action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, against Van Buren Green for the support of Sylvia Gayle Green and alleged it was the child of Van Buren Green. California and Oklahoma have adopted the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. West's Ann.Cal.Code Civ.Proc. § 1650 et seq. Ours became effective June 8, 1953. 12 O.S.Supp.1955 §§ 1600.1-1600.29. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County certified this case to the District Court of Oklahoma County. A summons was issued and served on Van Buren Green. Also an order for child support pendente lite was issued and served. Response to such order was made. Thereafter the matter was set down for trial. After a full and complete hearing the court found that it had jurisdiction of the case and that Sylvia Gayle Green was born as alleged and was a legitimate child of the marriage of Blanche Green and Van Buren Green which marriage was null and void because Van Buren Green was at the time of his marriage to Blanche Green lawfully married and undivorced from Hazel Green. Van Buren Green was ordered to pay five dollars a week for the support of Sylvia Gayle Green until she became of age or until further order of the court.

From the aforementioned judgment Van Buren Green has appealed.

Three points are raised in defendant's brief:

1. That the minor child involved in this action is illegitimate and the court erred as a matter of law in finding otherwise.

2. The child being illegitimate, the District Court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine this action.

3. Under the terms of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, the District Court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine this action regardless of the status of the child.

With defendant's proposition one, we cannot agree. Section 215, 84 O.S.1951, provides among other things as follows:

'* * * The issue of all marriages null in law, or dissolved by divorce, are legitimate.'

It is unquestioned that plaintiff and defendant went through a ceremonial marriage, were living together as husband and wife when the child was conceived. The foregoing statute has been construed to control in a case of this kind and a child born under such circumstances is legitimate. Jones v. Hyndman, 160 Okl. 61, 15 P.2d 582; In re Atkins' Estate, 151 Okl. 294, 3 P.2d 682, 84 A.L.R. 491; Atkins v. Rust, 168 Okl. 645, 33 P.2d 799; Sisney v. Sisney, 132 Okl. 90, 269 P. 349.

The fact that this provision of our statutes is found under the sections on Wills and Succession does not diminish its force or validity. We agree with the statement in 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 275, p. 461:

'In general, the location of statutes in particular places in codes does not affect their force or validity.'

Certainly no Legislature would intend to say that a child was legitimate as to inheritance and illegitimate as to whom should...