State v. Superior Court for King County

• Decision Date: 03 May 1919
• Docket Number: 15270.
• Citation: 106 Wash. 619,180 P. 875
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. RADDUE v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY.

180 P. 875

106 Wash. 619

STATE ex rel. RADDUE v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY.

No. 15270.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 3, 1919

Department 2.

Proceeding by the State, on the relation of May Raddue, on behalf of Lowell Raddue, a minor, against the Superior Court for King County for writ to review the order and proceedings of the juvenile court department committing such minor to the state training school. Hearing upon a show-cause order. Show-cause order set aside, and cause dismissed.

Peterson & Macbride, of Seattle, for plaintiff.

Fred C Brown and John Frater, both of Seattle, for respondent.

MITCHELL J.

On February 17, 1919, Lowell Raddue, a minor between 16 and 17 years of age, was found to be a dependent child, and on February 21, 1919, was ordered committed to the state training school by the juvenile court department of the superior court of King county.

May Raddue, the mother of the child, filed in this court her petition for a writ to review the order and proceedings of the superior court. Upon a show-cause order issued and served the respondent has made and filed a return.

In the final submission of the cause plaintiff relies on three chief contentions: First, it is claimed the petition filed in the superior court does not allege facts from which it can be determined if the minor was a delinquent. The petition in the trial court alleges that the child associates with a group of disorderly boys and engages in conduct which endangers his moral welfare, and that on the 31st day of January, 1919, he was disorderly in his conduct in and about the West Woodland School, during school hours. Thus there is the complaint of a general line of evil conduct by which he associated with disorderly boys, illustrated by a specific instance in and about a school during school hours. It is contended that the petition in the superior court must be taken as it appears upon its face, and that it is insufficient under section 5 of the juvenile court law of 1913 (Rem. Code, § 1987-5), to the effect that the petition shall contain a statement of facts constituting such dependency or delinquency, as defined in section 1987-1, Rem. Code. Section 1 of the law makes the whole act applicable to children under 18 years of age who are delinquent or dependent. The same section, by 18 subdivisions, gives meanings and definitions of the words 'dependent child.' Further on the section defines the words 'delinquent child' as one who violates positive statute law or who habitually uses vile obscene, vulgar, profane, or indecent language, or is guilty of immoral conduct, etc. By the statute, delinquency is a greater departure from right than is dependency. Subdivision 13 of section 1 of the act, in speaking of the care and restraint by the parents of the child, declares that a child 'who is in danger of being brought up to lead an idle dissolute or immoral life' is a dependent child, while subdivision 16 of the same section provides that a child 'who from any cause is in danger of growing up to lead an idle, dissolute or immoral life' is a dependent child. Manifestly, to complain that a boy 17 years of age associates with disorderly boys, and then specify that he was disorderly at one of the schools during school hours, is a sufficient statement of facts constituting dependency as defined in section 1 of the law. The words used in the complaint are plain words. The term 'dissolute' used in the statute conveys to the common mind the idea of being unrestrained or disorderly, which is the condition attributed to the child by the language of the complaint, because of his associations already developed into open disorder at one of the public schools. Especially must the language of the complaint be deemed sufficient in view of the rule of liberal construction enjoined by section 14 of the act, together with the policy suggested by section 10 thereof, which provides for private hearings in the discretion of the judge or upon demand of the child. Certain written records made in such cases are required to be kept from the public and to be destroyed before the child reaches the age of 21 years. The whole law thus presents the plan by which, in the attempt at promoting the child's moral welfare, as little as possible of minor details shall be given to the public, lest there be discouragement to the child and a disturbance of the process of reformation. Plaintiff calls attention to several cases from other states which appear to support the contention that the complaint is not sufficiently definite. An examination of them shows they rest upon statutes more or less different from ours in the definitions of delinquency and dependency, and are silent with reference to the rule of construction and the suggestion of private hearings and records declared in our law.

It is also argued by plaintiff that the proceedings are fatally irregular because the complaint alleged the child was a delinquent and the court found he was a dependent. On the contrary, the terminology used in this respect, in the petition or complaint, is unimportant for the court has jurisdiction in either kind of a case. The important thing is that the petition is...