In re Blake's Adoption

• Decision Date: 23 September 1944
• Docket Number: 29314.
• Citation: 151 P.2d 825,21 Wn.2d 547
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: In re BLAKE'S ADOPTION.

151 P.2d 825

21 Wn.2d 547

In re BLAKE'S ADOPTION.

No. 29314.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

September 23, 1944

In the matter of the adoption of Linda Lee Blake, a minor, wherein Beverly W. Blake, the father of the child, filed a petition to vacate an order of adoption. From a judgment dismissing his petition, Beverly W. Blake appeals.

Affirmed in accordance with opinion.

Appeal from Superior Court, Clallam County; H. G. Sutton, judge.

Tworoger, Horr & Franco, of Seattle, for appellant.

Max Church, of Port Angeles, for respondent.

BLAKE Justice.

Linda Lee Blake was born out of wedlock--the child of Beverly W Blake and Hazel Huss. May 23, 1942, upon petition of the former, she was adjudged to be a dependent child by the juvenile court of Clallam county and placed in the custody of her father. The matter of her custody came up again on July 27, 1942, and the court placed the child in the custody of Beverly Blake and Ethel Blake 'for six months from this date.' (Ethel Blake is the wife of Beverly W. Blake.) Again, on April 2, 1943, the court entered an order 'that the said child be a ward of [this] court; and that the child be placed in the temporary custody of Beverly and Ethel Blake for a period of six months from the date of this hearing.' The next day, however, the court made an oral ruling, which, among other things, provided as follows:

'The court denies the petition of Beverly Blake that the child be placed with his Mother * * *. It is found by the Court that there is no suitable fixed home for the minor and she will be placed permanently by this court.

'Mr Blake is ordered to have Linda Lee in Port Angeles Before this Court on Wednesday, April 7, 1943. * * *

'As requested by Mr. Blake, the home of Zella Streeter, Aunt of Mr. Blake, will be considered by the Court when permanent placement of the child is made.'

On April 7th, it was by the court

'Ordered and Adjudged, that the said Linda Lee Blake be and she is hereby declared a ward of this Court and will be placed permanently by the Court in a foster home.'

Shortly thereafter, she was placed in the custody of Mr. and Mrs. George W. Eccleston, of Port Angeles.

In May, 1943, Effie McPherson (mother of Beverly W. Blake) and her husband, William G. McPherson, residents of Yakima county, filed in the superior court of that county a petition for the adoption of the child. Accompanying the petition was the written consent of her parents, Blake and Hazel Huss. Upon this petition, a decree of adoption was entered June 8, 1943.

On June 17, 1943, the Ecclestons filed a petition for adoption of the child in the superior court of Challam county. Without notice to either Blake or Hazel Huss, that court, on June 21, 1943, entered an order of adoption upon the petition of the Ecclestons. Blake subsequently filed a petition to vacate the order. From judgment dismissing his petition, Blake appeals.

Appellant contends: (1) That the decree of adoption entered by the superior court of Yakima county is a conclusive adjudication with respect to the status of the child; (2) that the order of adoption entered by the superior court of Clallam county is void.

Appellant's first contention is manifestly untenable. To sustain it would seriously impair the power of juvenile courts under the Laws of 1913, chapter 160, p. 520, as amended by the Laws of 1937, chapter 65, § 1, p. 211, Rem.Rev.Stat. §§ 1987-1, 1987-3 to 1987-18, and Rem.Rev.Stat.Supp.,§ 1987-2. Where the juvenile court of a county acquires jurisdiction of a dependent child and declares it to be a ward of the court, the jurisdiction of the superior court of another county cannot be invoked to pass upon or determine the legal status of the child. (Whether the superior court of another county would have jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus proceedings with respect to such a child is, of course, a different question.) We feel certain that the superior court of Yakima county would not have undertaken to do so in this instance had it been informed that the child was a ward of the juvenile court of Clallam county.

Appellant's second contention is based upon failure of the court to comply with §§ 5 and 8, Laws of 1943, chapter 268, pp. 829, 830, Rem.Supp.1943, §§ 1699-6, 1699-9. That is an act relating to adoption, and repealing prior laws dealing with the subject. Section 3, p. 828 (Rem.Supp.1943, § 1699-4), of the act provides that:

'Written consent to * * * adoption must be filed prior to a hearing on [the] petition, as follows: * * *

'(b) If the person to be adopted be of legitimate birth or legitimized thereafter, and a minor, then by each of his living parents, except as hereinafter provided;

'(c) If the person to be adopted be illegitimate and a minor, then by his mother, if living, except as hereinafter provided; * * *.' (Italics ours.)

Section 4 provides:

'No consent for the adoption of a minor shall be required as follows:

'(a) From a parent deprived of civil rights;

'(b) From a parent who has been deprived of the custody of such child by a court of competent jurisdiction, after notice: Provided, however, That a decree in an action for divorce, separate maintenance or annulment, which grants to a parent any right of custody, control, or visitation of a minor child shall not constitute such deprivation of custody;

'(c) From a parent adjudged and decreed to be incompetent;

'(d) From a parent who, more than one (1) year prior to the filing of a petition hereunder, has been adjudged to be insane and who has not thereafter been found sane by competent authority authorized by law so to do;

'(e) From a parent who has been found by a Court of competent jurisdiction, upon notice as herein provided to such parent, to have deserted or abandoned such child.'

Section 5 provides:

'If the Court, in an adoption proceeding, after a hearing for that purpose upon notice thereof as hereinafter provided having been given to a parent, shall find any of the conditions set forth in the preceding section hereof to be a fact as to such parent, then the Court may decree that consent of such parent shall not be required prior ot adoption.'

Section 8 reads as follows:

'The Court shall direct notice of any hearing hereunder to be given to any nonconsenting parent of guardian, if any, or any person or association having the care, custody or control of said child. Such notice shall be given in the following manner: The Court shall direct the clerk to issue a notice directed to the parent or such person or association as may have the actual care, custody, or control of such child, returnable in not less than ten (10) days from the date of its issuance, which notice shall be served in the following manner: By personal service as provided for the service of summons: Provided, however, That if it appears from the affidavit of the petitioner that personal service may not be had then by publication in the manner provided by law for publication of summons,

...