Taylor v. Morris, s. 44468
| Decision Date | 26 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | 44494 and 44569,Nos. 44468,s. 44468 |
| Citation | 564 P.2d 795,88 Wn.2d 586 |
| Parties | James V. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Charles MORRIS, Secretary, Department of Social and Health Services, Respondent. John DOE and Richard Roe, Petitioners, v. Milton BURDMAN, Secretary, Department of Social and Health Services, Respondent. Stephen STOE and Newton Noe, Petitioners, v. Milton BURDMAN, Secretary, Department of Social and Health Services, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Peter D. Francis, Seattle, Northwest Washington Legal Services, Lonnie G. Davis, Randy Beitel, Everett, Evergreen Legal Services Center, Linda L. Dawson and Patrick H. McIntyre, Seattle, for petitioners.
Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Walter E. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for respondent.
Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen & Williams, Richard Ottesen Prentke, Seattle, for appellant.
In these consolidated cases, the court is asked to determine whether, under RCW 74.20A, the Department of Social and Health Services has the authority to determine administratively the question of paternity. In Taylor v. Morris, the alleged putative father appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County holding that it had such authority. The other actions were initiated in this court (under RAP 16.2) to arrest administrative proceedings in which the Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services sought to obtain reimbursement from the plaintiffs, as alleged natural parents of children receiving state support.
It is the contention of the appellant and the petitioners that the legislature has vested the power to make such determinations exclusively in the courts. The secretary has not suggested that RCW 74.20A confers upon the department the express authority to make findings upon the question of parentage. Rather, as we understand his position, he maintains that the power is necessarily implied in the act.
The rule is conceded to be that administrative agencies, being 'creatures of statute', possess only such powers and authority as are expressly granted by statute or necessarily implied therein. Ortblad v. State, 85 Wash.2d 109, 530 P.2d 635 (1975).
RCW 74.20A was first enacted in 1971 and amended in 1973. Its premable, contained in 72.20A.010, reveals its purpose. It reads:
Common law and statutory procedures governing the remedies for enforcement of support for financially dependent minor children by responsible parents have not proven sufficiency effective or efficient to cope with the increasing incidence of financial dependency. The increasing workload of courts, prosecuting attorneys, and the attorney general has made such remedies uncertain, slow and inadequate, thereby resulting in a growing burden on the financial resources of the state, which is constrained to provide public assistance grants for basic maintenance requirements when parents fail to meet their primary obligations. The state of Washington, therefore, exercising its police and sovereign power, Declares that the common law and statutory remedies pertaining to family desertion and nonsupport of minor dependent children shall be augmented by additional remedies directed to the real and personal property resources of the responsible parents. In order to render resources more immediately available to meet the needs of minor children, it is the legislative intent that the remedies herein provided are in addition to, and not in lieu of, existing law. It is declared to be the public policy of this state that this chapter be construed and administered to the end that children shall be maintained from the resources of responsible parents, thereby relieving, at least in part, the burden presently borne by the general citizenry through welfare programs.
(Italics ours.)
It will be seen that this provision focuses upon the need for additional remedies to aid in the collection of debts owed by responsible parents. A 'responsible parent' is defined in RCW 74.20A.020 as the natural or adoptive parent of a dependent child.
In furtherance of the expressed purpose, RCW 74.20A.030 provides that any payment of public assistance money made to or for the benefit of any dependent child creates a debt due the department by the natural or adoptive parent or parents who are responsible for support of such children. Provisos which follow regulate the department's power where court orders or agreements are involved, with respect to the amount owed by the parent. One of the provisos exempts parents who are themselves receiving public assistance.
RCW 74.20A.040 authorizes the secretary, where he is subrogated to or assigned a judgment created by a superior court order, to give notice of the department's claim and to enforce a lien against property of the debtor.
RCW 74.20A.050 provides that, in the absence of a superior court order, the secretary may issue a notice of a support debt accrued which shall be served upon the debtor. The contents of the notice, according to the statute, shall include a statement of the amount owed, the name of the recipient of the public assistance and the name of the child for whom it is being paid, and a demand for immediate payment or an answer within 20 days stating defenses to liability under RCW 74.20A.030. If no answer is received within 20 days, a collection warrant is authorized. The section provides that if the debtor answers alleging defenses under RCW 74.20A.030, he is entitled to a fair hearing under RCW 74.08.070 and .090. 1
RCW 74.20A.055 provides an alternative to the hearing and appeal procedure provided in RCW 74.20A.050. It authorizes the secretary,
in the absence of a superior court order, (to) serve on the responsible parent a notice and finding of financial responsibility requiring a responsible parent to appear and show cause in a hearing held by the department why the finding of responsibility and/or the amount thereof is incorrect, should not be finally ordered, but should be rescinded or modified.
Provisions relating to the hearing and its effect follow. The section provides that the 'notice and finding of financial responsibility' shall set forth the amounts claimed to be owed and to be due in the future. It further provides:
The notice and finding shall also include a statement of the name of the recipient or custodian and the name of the child or children for whom assistance is being paid or need is alleged; and/or a statement of the amount of periodic future support payments as to which financial responsibility is found.
It continues:
The notice and finding shall include a statement that the responsible parent may object to all or any part of the notice and finding, request a hearing to show cause why said responsible parent should not be determined to be liable for any or all of the debt If a hearing is requested, the hearing examiner is directed to determine the liability and responsibility, if any, of the alleged responsible parent under RCW 74.20A.030 and the amount of payments to be made to satisfy liability under RCW 74.20A.030 and/or 26.16.205 (liability of husband and wife for support of children). He is directed to consider the necessities and requirements of the child, the amount of support debt claimed, the legislative policy that children be supported by responsible parents, and the abilities and resources of the responsible parent. Further actions and proceedings are provided for in this section, but no reference is made to a determination of paternity.
The remaining sections of the act pertain to the enforcement of the lien of the department established in the above proceedings. Thirteen sections treat this matter in detail.
Reading these provisions together, it is apparent that the purpose of the legislature in enacting this statute was to provide additional and more effective procedures for reaching the earnings and the property of a responsible parent whose child is receiving public assistance, rather than to provide an additional procedure for determining the identity of a child's father when the child is born out of wedlock. Guidelines for determining the amount which a parent should pay are set forth in detail, but nothing is said of the procedure by which the department should determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rossa v. WCAB (CITY OF PHILADELPHIA)
...12. Poole Truck Lines v. Coates, 833 S.W.2d 876 (Mo.App.1992) (only civil courts can determine paternity); and Taylor v. Morris, 88 Wash.2d 586, 564 P.2d 795 (1977). ...
-
Rossa ex rel. Rossa v. WCAB
...by Employer that hold to the contrary apply the Uniform Parentage Act, which is not applicable in Pennsylvania. See Taylor v. Morris, 88 Wash.2d 586, 564 P.2d 795 (1977); Poole Truck Lines, Inc. v. Coates, 833 S.W.2d 876 (Mo.Ct.App.1992). 7. Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, 71 P.S. §§ 568 an......
-
Tuerk v. State, Dept. of Licensing
...do not have implied authority to determine issues outside of that agency's delegated functions or purpose. See Taylor v. Morris, 88 Wash.2d 586, 564 P.2d 795 (1977). See also Woolery v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 25 Wash.App. 762, 612 P.2d 1 (1980) (following Taylor v. Morris, su......
-
In re Shortway
...In re Marriage of Aldrich , 72 Wash. App. 132, 137-38, 864 P.2d 388 (1993) (alteration in original) (quoting Taylor v. Morris , 88 Wash.2d 586, 588, 564 P.2d 795 (1977) ). Various statutes grant the Department the power to enforce a parent’s child support obligation judicially or administra......
-
Table of Cases
...U.S. 638, 112 S. Ct. 1644, 118 L. Ed. 2d 280, 26 C.B.C.2d 487 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.04[2] Taylor v. Morris, 88 Wn.2d 586, 564 P.2d 795 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.06[1][a], [b]; 58.02[2] Taylor v. Shigaki, 84 Wn. App. 723, 930 P.2d 340 (1997) . . . . . . ......
-
Paternity Determinations in Washington: Balancing the Interests of All Parties
...1984) (citing U.S. Bureau of the Census, Child Support and Alimony: 1981 (advance report)). 11. Taylor v. Morris, 88 Wash. 2d 586, 591, 564 P.2d 795, 797 (1977) (state contended that support obligations enforced under Wash. Rev. Code § 26.26.150 implied right to determine paternity administ......
-
§28.06 Administrative Establishment of Child Support
.... . . ." RCW 74.20A.020(7). This statute does not include the father of a child whose paternity needs to be established. Taylor v. Morris, 88 Wn.2d 586, 564 P.2d 795 (1977). A superior court order is defined in RCW 74.20A.020(5) as "any judgment, decree, or order of the superior court of th......
-
§58.02 Basis of Action
...Health Services (DSHS) has twice, without success, asserted a right to the administrative determination of parentage. Taylor v. Morris, 88 Wn.2d 586, 564 P.2d 795 (1977); Woolery v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 25 Wn. App. 762, 612 P.2d 1, review denied, 94 Wn.2d 1009 (1980). [3] Statute ......