King v. Department of Social and Health Services

• Decision Date: 23 June 1988
• Docket Number: No. 54186-8,54186-8
• Citation: 110 Wn.2d 793,756 P.2d 1303
• Parties: In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Dawson KING, Respondent, v. The DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Petitioner.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 793

110 Wn.2d 793

756 P.2d 1303

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Dawson KING, Respondent, v. The DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Petitioner.

No. 54186-8.

Supreme Court of Washington,

En Banc.

June 23, 1988.

Ken Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Maureen McGuire, Asst. Atty. Gen., Spokane, for petitioner.

University Legal Assistance, Mark E. Wilson, Spokane, for respondent.

UTTER, Justice.

The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) seeks reversal of a Court of Appeals decision ordering Dawson King to be released from jail. Mr. King had been found in contempt of court by the juvenile court in June 1986 for disobeying its order to bring his young son Jason, to a dependency hearing; he was jailed indefinitely until he complied with the order. Approximately 1 year later, the Court of Appeals granted Mr. King's personal restraint petition, holding that the incarceration had become punitive rather than coercive as a matter of law. We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the warrant of commitment pending further proceedings in the trial court.

Jason and Levi, the twin boys of Dawson and Sarah King, were born in March 1985 in Spokane. In December 1985, while Mrs. King was in an in-patient psychiatric facility, Mr. King took the children to Idaho and left them with relatives. Shortly thereafter, Levi suffocated after allegedly being trapped between a mattress and a wall. An examination revealed broken bones and a skull fracture believed to have occurred in November 1985. Because of the nature of Levi's injuries, Jason was also examined at the request of Idaho authorities and found to have a broken arm, spiral fracture of one leg and a skull fracture. The daughter of a babysitter later claimed to have fallen down the stairs while carrying both children. The record does not reveal whether criminal charges were filed.

After Levi's death, Mr. King brought Jason back to the Colville area. On February 2, 1986, a caseworker from DSHS contacted Mr. King and informed him of Jason's need for follow-up treatment. Mr. King brought his son to the hospital and an examination revealed only the old injuries. The hospital released Jason to his father.

On February 14, 1986, Sarah King, who had by then become a patient in the psychiatric ward of Sacred Heart Hospital in Spokane, made a complaint to the Child Protective Services (CPS) alleging that Mr. King had abused the boys. Specifically, she claimed that he had violently spanked them, put tape over their mouths and dunked them in cold water to stop their crying. She stated that these events occurred when the twins were approximately 3 months old and when they were still on a heart monitoring system due to respiratory ailments.

In response to this complaint, a CPS caseworker met with Mr. King at his home on February 14, 1986. Mr. King denied his wife's allegations and refused to produce Jason. He stated that Jason was in Spokane with a babysitter but otherwise refused to disclose his location. The caseworker asked to meet with the babysitter to ensure the child's safety and Mr. King agreed to meet with the caseworker that evening in Spokane with Jason. However, Mr. King failed to appear. DSHS filed a dependency petition. A shelter care order was signed on February 19, 1986, alleging the child to be abused or neglected. A hearing was set for April 4, 1986.

Sometime after Sarah's release from the hospital in late March, Dawson and Sarah King apparently moved to Utah. On March 21, however, an attorney appeared for Mr. King in the dependency petition proceeding. The original hearing date was continued to May 23. On April 30, the Kings' attorney filed an answer to the petition challenging the juvenile court's jurisdiction over them since they were now Utah residents. The court rejected the Kings' argument that it lacked jurisdiction and gave them a choice: either disclose Jason's exact location and have that state take jurisdiction or produce the child to the court within 30 days and submit to the jurisdiction of Stevens County.

The Kings chose the latter course but did not comply with the order to produce the child. Instead, Sarah King submitted an affidavit recanting the allegations of child abuse she had made in her February 1986 complaint. On June 25, 1986, the court ordered the Kings to appear on June 27 to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court. Once again the Kings appeared and refused to inform the court as to Jason's location. Pursuant to its general civil contempt powers in RCW 7.20.110 and the juvenile dependency statute (RCW 13.34.070), the court ordered the Kings jailed until such time as they revealed the location of their son. As of this writing, the child's whereabouts and well-being are not known.

Mrs. King was released shortly after the contempt order when the court was advised that she did not know Jason's location. Mr. King remained in the Stevens County Jail. He made no subsequent appearance before the court for the purpose of purging the contempt. On January 9, 1987, Mr. King filed a personal restraint petition and jurisdiction appeal with Division Three of the Court of Appeals. That court upheld the juvenile court's jurisdiction over the matter, King v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 47 Wash.App. 816, 821-24, 738 P.2d 289 (1987), and that issue is not directly before this court. However, the Court of Appeals granted the personal restraint petition and terminated the order of confinement. King, at 827, 738 P.2d 289. We granted the DSHS petition for review.

I

We first address the issue of the appropriate source of a trial court's contempt powers in coercing compliance with a lawful order involving the welfare of minor children. The question here is whether a trial court's general contempt power, as provided in RCW 7.20.110, ¹ is circumscribed by the specific contempt provision of the juvenile dependency statute, RCW 13.34.165. ² The Court of Appeals did not rule on this issue, holding that under either contempt provision, the trial court had exceeded its authority. King, at 826, 738 P.2d 289.

Intentional disobedience of a lawful court order is contempt. Mathewson v. Primeau, 64 Wash.2d 929, 934, 395 P.2d 183 (1964); State v. Norlund, 31 Wash.App. 725, 728, 644 P.2d 724 (1982). A juvenile court has authority to incarcerate a contemnor for the purposes of compelling compliance. State v. Martin, 36 Wash.App. 1, 4, 670 P.2d 1082 (1983), rev'd on other grounds, 102 Wash.2d 300, 684 P.2d 1290 (1984). Whether contempt is warranted in a particular case is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court; unless that discretion is abused, it should not be disturbed on appeal. Schuster v. Schuster, 90 Wash.2d 626, 630, 585 P.2d 130 (1978).

RCW 13.34.040-.110 of the juvenile dependency statute sets forth the procedures to be employed by the court when deciding whether a dependent child should be taken into the custody of the state and given shelter care. RCW 13.34.050 authorizes the court to take a child into custody upon finding "reasonable grounds to believe ... that the child's health, safety, and welfare will be seriously endangered if not taken into custody." Upon issuing a summons to the parents, the court may order them to bring the child to the hearing. RCW 13.34.070(4). A parent who fails to comply with such an order "may be proceeded against as for contempt of court." RCW 13.34.070(6). The scope of a court's contempt powers in such instances is not defined.

In this case, the trial court utilized the provisions of RCW 13.34.070 and ordered the Kings to bring Jason to the shelter care hearing. When the Kings did not bring Jason to the hearing on the date ordered, the court found both parents guilty of contempt and sentenced them to jail until such time as they complied. The order of contempt and warrant of commitment ordered King's incarceration until such time as he

shall disclose the specific location of the child, JASON KING, AND such disclosure is verified by the DSHS/DCFS, AND the child ... is placed in shelter care in Washington State or other equivalent protective custody in another state. NO BOND is permitted.

Clerk's Papers, at 71-72. The court cited the general civil contempt statute in RCW 7.20.110 as authority for its order.

Mr. King contends that the court's contempt power is restricted by the specific contempt provision in the juvenile dependency statute (RCW 13.34.165), which limits incarceration for contempt to 7 days. RCW 13.34.165(2). Petitioner DSHS maintains that RCW 13.34.165 is not an exclusive remedy for all violations of court orders issued in the context of child support and dependency proceedings; a trial court retains its general authority to impose contempt sanctions on traditional grounds. Thus, under the general civil contempt statute, the duration of incarceration may be unlimited. RCW 7.20.110.

Where two statutes are in apparent conflict, this court will, if possible, reconcile them to the end that each may be given effect. In re Mayner, 107 Wash.2d 512, 522, 730 P.2d 1321 (1986). Although the difference between the two contempt provisions is substantial, any conflict between the two provisions is more apparent than real. The two provisions reflect the two fundamentally different types of contempt sanctions, civil and criminal; hence, they are complementary and not mutually exclusive tools at the court's disposal to achieve different purposes. A careful analysis of the distinctions between civil and criminal contempt leads us to conclude that the contempt provision in RCW 13.34.165(2) is punitive, hence criminal, in nature and does not preclude a court from exercising its coercive powers under the general civil contempt statute, RCW 7.20.110.

In determining whether a particular contempt sanction is civil or criminal, we look to the substance of the proceeding and the character of the relief that the proceeding will afford. If the purpose of the...