State ex rel. Haugland v. Smythe
| Decision Date | 07 June 1946 |
| Docket Number | 29957. |
| Citation | 25 Wn.2d 161,169 P.2d 706 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. HAUGLAND v. SMYTHE, Judge. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1
Certiorari proceeding by the State of Washington, on the relation of Henrietta P. Haugland, against the Honorable Ralph Smythe Judge of the Superior Court of Clallam County, State of Washington. To review an order directing Henrietta P Haugland, administrator of the county welfare department, to produce the department records of a delinquent minor child for use in a juvenile case.
Order affirmed.
Smith Troy, of Olympia, and Elroy Wiehl, Ass't. Atty. Gen., for relator.
Max Church, Pros. Atty., of Port Angeles, for respondent.
The question presented herein for decision is this: Has a judge of the superior court, while conducting a juvenile case, the right by subpoena duces tecum to compel an administrator of the county welfare department to produce in court the original confidential file of such department concerning a delinquent minor child, for inspection and use of such file by the juvenile court in the matter then pending and affecting the delinquent minor?
Owing to the partly informal manner in which the question in issue was presented to and determined by the juvenile court, the record in this case is not as full, nor as clear and definite, as we should prefer to have it. Our statement of the facts with reference to the controversy is therefore necessarily based upon the information derived from an equivocal record supplemented by the briefs and oral argument of counsel.
The relator, Henrietta P. Haugland, is the duly authorized and acting 'administrator' of the welfare department of Clallam county. The respondent, Ralph Smythe, is the duly qualified and acting judge of the superior court for the same county and, as such, has charge of juvenile matters in that county.
In September, 1944, a proceeding was instituted in the juvenile department of the superior court for Clallam county designating Edward Wournell, then approximately fourteen and one-half years of age, as a delinquent child. After a hearing in that proceeding the court entered an order permitting the youth to return to and remain with his parents, upon certain stated conditions.
In April, 1946, the matter demanded further consideration and disposition by the juvenile court. Edward had then reached the age of sixteen years. In the course of the renewed proceeding, the court on April 3d caused to be issued a subpoena duces tecum commanding the relator to appear in court on April 8th, then and there to give evidence concerning the matter under investigation and also to bring with her into court the complete original file of the county welfare department bearing upon Edward Wournell, the named delinquent child.
It appears that, for some time prior to this last mentioned proceeding, the county welfare department had aided the named child or his parents through its programs for general public assistance and aid to dependent children. In dispensing that assistance the welfare department maintained three separate distinct files, in each of which the child, Edward Wournell, was mentioned. Two of those files pertained to Ida May Wournell, now deceased, mother of Edward, and had reference to requests by her for work relief and placement and for aid to her two children, including Edward, and also contained memoranda of advice given to the mother concerning a possible annulment of marriage. The third file pertained to the grandparents, also spoken of as the adoptive parents, of Edward, and contained information relative to the grandparents' application for old age assistance and for aid to the two adoptive children, including Edward.
As on similar occasions in the past, the administrator, in response to the subpoena duces tecum, informed the juvenile court that she was forbidden by the rules and regulations of the welfare department to produce in court the original records in such matters. However, as also on former occasions and in accordance with the past policy of the department of social security and of the various county welfare departments, the administrator did submit to the court an analysis or summary of the record, as prepared by herself or under her supervision, which summary, in her opinion, contained all pertinent facts, data, and recommendations relative to the child Edward, but she declined to produce the original records thereon. Her refusal to submit the original files was based on the ground that such disclosures would be in violation of chapter 128, § 5, Laws of 1941, Rem.Supp.1941, § 10007-106b and sections 1, 4, and 8 of Rules and Regulations No. 212.6 of the state department of social security.
After examining the analysis, or summary, submitted by the administrator, the respondent judge made a finding that it was inadequate. In a memorandum opinion subsequently rendered, the judge expressed his views at some length, giving his reasons for requiring the original files. Among those reasons were the following: (1) In at least one prior summary which had been submitted to the court by the welfare department, 'gross errors of fact were included, and the conclusions drawn from them were dangerously inaccurate;' (2) such summaries rarely show the source of the information included therein, and hence there is no way to determine the relative weight of the evidence on which the social worker based his or her opinion; (3) partly because of the shortage of qualified help, the county welfare departments has been unable to supply such summaries within a reasonable time, whereas the original records could in every case be promptly produced; and (4) summaries are usually prepared by persons who are untrained workers and whose summary reports are therefore inadequate.
The opinion further emphasized the fact that the desired information had been requested for the court's 'own use in determining the ultimate disposition of a maladjusted child,' and pointed out that the practice obtaining generally in all juvenile courts in this state was to conduct such juvenile hearings privately and to withhold from public inspection the records obtained from the administrators of assistance programs.
Having set forth at length its reasons for requiring the original records, the memorandum opinion concluded with an order directing the administrator to produce such records on a day set, under penalty of being held in contempt for failure to do so. The administrator thereupon filed in this court an application for a writ of certiorari to review the order made by the juvenile court.
Relator's contention is that the records of the welfare department are confidential, in that they involve communications which are privileged against disclosure. The basis of this contention is predicated upon that portion of the Federal Social Security Act relative to state plans for aid to dependent children, found in 49 Stat. 627, Ch. 531, Title IV, § 402, 53 Stat. 1379, Ch. 666, Title IV, § 401, 42 U.S.C.A. § 602(a), which provides:
'A State plan for aid to dependent children must * * * (8) provide safeguards which restrict the use or disclosure of information concerning applicants and recipients to purposes directly connected with the administration of aid to dependent children.'
A subsequent section provides that upon failure to comply substantially with any provision required by section 602(a) the Federal Social Security Board shall notify the state agency that further payments will not be made to the state until the board is satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply. 49 Stat. 628, Ch. 531, Title IV, § 404, 42 U.S.C.A. § 604.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal act, the legislature of this state enacted chapter 128, Laws of 1941, p. 379, Rem.Supp.1941, § 10007-103a et seq.,§ 5 of which act provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rinaldo
...gained for the correct disposal of litigation. Senear, 97 Wash.2d at 153, 641 P.2d 1180 (quoting State ex rel. Haugland v. Smythe, 25 Wash.2d 161, 168, 169 P.2d 706, 165 A.L.R. 1295 (1946)). Only if all four of these conditions are met and the privilege found to exist, are the interests of ......
-
Senear v. Daily Journal American
...9 Wash.App. 766, 514 P.2d 1073 (1973); Cook v. King County, 9 Wash.App. 50, 510 P.2d 659 (1973). Cf. State ex rel. Haugland v. Smythe, 25 Wash.2d 161, 169 P.2d 706, 165 A.L.R. 1295 (1946). The assertion of a newsperson's privilege based on public policy considerations is not before this cou......
-
Salary of Juvenile Director, Matter of
...85 Wash.2d 646, 538 P.2d 501 (1975); to compel attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence, See State ex rel. Haugland v. Smythe, 25 Wash.2d 161, 169 P.2d 706 (1946); to regulate practice of law, See State v. Cook, 84 Wash.2d 342, 525 P.2d 761 (1974); In re Patton, 86 N.M. 52, 51......
-
State v. Wadsworth
...administration of justice). 93. See State ex rel. Syverson v. Foster, 84 Wash. 58, 146 P. 169 (1915). 94. See State ex rel. Haugland v. Smythe, 25 Wash.2d 161, 169 P.2d 706 (1946). 95. See State v. Smith, 84 Wash.2d 498, 502, 527 P.2d 674 96. See State v. Cook, 84 Wash.2d 342, 525 P.2d 761 ......