In re Chartrand
| Decision Date | 27 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | 14880.,14835 |
| Citation | 173 P. 728,103 Wash. 36 |
| Parties | In re CHARTRAND. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Chelan County; Wm. A Grimshaw, Judge.
In the matter of Louise Chartrand. Application by Louise Chartrand for a writ of habeas corpus to the superior court of Chelan county, and also to the superior court of King county. Writ denied by both courts, and from the ruling of each court the petitioner appeals; the two appeals being consolidated. Chelan county cause reversed and remanded; King county cause affirmed.
C. B Conner, of Wenatchee, for appellant.
Burt J Williams, of Wenatchee, for respondent.
The appellant, on the 7th day of March, 1918, presented her petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the superior court of Chelan county, alleging in effect that she was unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of her liberty by the Mother Superior of the Home of the Good Shepherd in the city of Seattle, King county, Wash.; that the cause, or pretended cause, of such restraint, was an order made and issued by the said court 'in the Matter of the Delinquency of Louise Chartrand,' an action then pending in said court on the 27th day of June, 1917; and then follow allegations purporting to show that such order of restraint was and is void. On the presentation of the petition the superior court declined to consider or pass upon the petitioner's right to the writ, upon the ground and because it appeared in the petition 'that the petitioner is confined within the county of King, state of Washington, and this court is without Jurisdiction to grant the writ asked.' Whereupon, and for the reason stated, the writ was denied, and the case comes here on appeal.
The appellant, after the refusal of the superior court of Chelan county to act upon her petition, filed a similar petition in the superior court for King county, with the same result, which cause likewise is brought here on appeal, and the appellant has made application for the consolidation of the two causes in this court.
It appears, from the petition and the exhibits thereto attached, that the petitioner was charged with being a juvenile delinquent within the meaning of Laws 1913, c. 160. And the court in its original order of commitment provided:
'It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows: That said Louise Chartrand is a minor delinquent within the meaning of chapter 160 of the Laws of 1913 of the state of Washington; and it is further considered, ordered, and adjudged that the said Louise Chartrand be and she hereby is committed to the Home of the Good Shepherd, Seattle, Wash., until further order of the court, or until said Louise Chartrand reaches the age of 21 years.'
It is therefore apparent that the question here to be decided is: Did the superior court of Chelan county retain jurisdiction over the petitioner, and was the application for the writ of habeas corpus made to the proper tribunal? The juvenile court law, or juvenile act (Laws of 1913, c. 160), has been passed upon several times by this court, but not with reference to the question here raised. It will be necessary, therefore, to consider some features of the act briefly.
The last paragraph of section 1 of the act provides:
'For the purpose of this act only, all delinquent and dependent children within the state shall be considered wards of this state and their persons shall be subject to the custody, care, guardianship and control of the court as hereinafter provided.'
In section 2:
'The superior courts in the several counties of this state shall have original jurisdiction in all cases coming within the terms of this act.'
And in section 5:
'Any person may file with the clerk of the superior court a petition showing that there is within the county, or residing within the county, a dependent or delinquent child and praying that the superior court deal with such child as provided in this act.'
From which it appears that the superior court, as to any such dependent or delinquent child, stands in the position of a guardian. In the latter part of section 9:
'The jurisdiction of the court shall continue over every child brought before the court, or committed pursuant to this act, and the court shall have power to order a change in the care or custody of such child, if at any time it is made to appear to the court that it would be for the best interests...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hook
... ... Any ... other construction would tend to subvert the fundamental ... purpose of the statute. This authority of the court is not ... lost or exhausted, though the child be committed to a person ... or institution outside its territorial jurisdiction ... In re Chartrand, 103 Wash. 36, 173 ... When ... it appears to the board, then, that it cannot adequately care ... for a child so awarded to it, it may apply to the court for a ... further order, and though the child be not delinquent, but ... only dependent or neglected, the court may ... ...
-
Boatman, In re
...minor is subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the juvenile court until the child's condition of dependency ceases. In re Chartrand, 103 Wash. 36, 173 P. 728 (1918); State ex rel. De Bit v. Superior Court, 103 Wash. 183, 173 P. 1014 (1918); In re Walker, supra; State v. Speer, 36 Wash.2......
-
In re Hook
... ... Any other construction would tend to subvert the fundamental purpose of the statute. This authority of the court is not lost or exhausted, though the child be committed to a person or institution outside its territorial jurisdiction. In re Chartrand, 103 Wash. 36, 173 Pac. 728 ... When it appears to the board, then, that it cannot adequately care for a child so awarded to it, it may apply to the court for a further order, and, though the child be not delinquent, but only dependent or neglected, the court may thereupon commit ... ...
-
State v. Speer
... ... an approved family and may become a member of the family, by ... adoption or otherwise.' [36 Wn.2d 25] ... The jurisdiction of ... the juvenile court was held to be continuing in Re ... Chartrand, 103 Wash. 36, 173 P. 728, and in State ex ... rel. De Bit v. Superior Court for King County, 103 Wash ... 183, 173 P. 1014 ... Since, under the ... provisions of § 1987-1 (quoted above), Margaret was a ... ward of the state on March 30, 1949, and her person ... ...