*1 agree with that rights. We vested in violation his was conclusion. court is affirmed. —Affirmed. of the trial judgment
All concur. Justices guardian natural Grant, his Davis, Robert Harold Mildred Davis, Harold friend, petitioner-appellee, next respondent-appellant.
No. 48561. (Reported 566) in 67 N.W.2d *3 December Moines, Sloane Hise, respond-
Ted and Don both of Des ent-appellant. L. Clyde Herring, County Attorney,
Loma L. Williams, A. Lorentzen, County Attorney, and James of Des Assistant all Moines, for petitioner-appellee. involves construction C.J. This
Garfield, Codes, 1950, 1954, en- provisions 252A, of some Dependents Law”, enacted Support titled “Uniform Fifty-third Assembly chapter 103. General brought Petitioner, age the action guardian against nest friend his his mother as natural compel support. parents furnish father to him to Petitioner’s (respondent in 1929 when he was His father were divorced sis. herein) pay child a week until the $5 was ordered to boy clothing, furnish all medical became and to services Respondent another supplies. educational married woman boy (Rob- in 1931. The 1930. The mother married another man his until ert) and, with mother death has continued to live her grandmother. 1953, his maternal pleadings admit is unable to maintain him- impaired portion self, brain, illness in childhood of his he *4 appears employed. been—and unable to It with- has never is be— means, no dispute has is a victim of cerebral menin- out Robert requires year old, gitis attention, he was a constant and his since virtually all her to care. Her in- devotes time his total mother present to month, a allotted her from her husband’s $157 come of petitioner’s for her support. is own and army pay, insufficient support Robert nor contributed to has not seen his Respondent July about since
Repsondent a post is clerk Moines where Des office he has been employed thirty years. salary His in 1952 was $4370. City He owns twelve acres in on which lives. Polk he He ground. Respondent rents out nine acres of this also owns half realty. interest in 160 acres in He Canada. inherited his It is not incumbered. equity.
Trial respondent was in pay $50 was decreed month petitioner’s support. Respondent toward to appealed us.
I. Respondent sup compel contends a to port Iowa, of an father, adult son his of whom both reside cannot be provisions maintained under the Code which, passed said, object forcing for specific was absconding support family. argued chapter father It is his 252A inapplicable dependent respondent where both live brought Iowa since suit under Code 252 to compel support. The argument effect of the is that provides remedy the exclusive and there is remedy no 252A, parties where both reside in Iowa. argument
We think the is unsound. acceptance Its would require nullify many provisions us to of chapter 252A which clearly it was apply where, indicate intended to here, as both parent child and are residents of Iowa. true, suggests,
It is that generally com at parent’s obligation mon support law a his child when ends age. the latter But becomes is an important, widely there recognized exception this rule child because of weak body upon unable to or mind is care for itself attaining majority. support obligation such a child ceases the ne when cessity support throughout ceases. Courts the land have emphatically eloquently. so held This plainly ease falls general exception within this rule. just of what we have said see Pocialik v. Co., App. 11, Tile 121 Ind.
Federal Cement 97 N.E.2d tendency jurisdictions (“The most this country where * * * is to question has arisen find that there an obligation children who defective are unable to support them attaining majority.”); their In re Glass’ Estate, selves 934; West, 262 P.2d Williams v. Ky., 258 Kan. S.W.2d
267 authority not neces (holding weight decided 473 Breuer v. home); sary adult child live the father’s that the R. anno 541, 146, 42 A. L. Dowden, Ky. 12, 207 268 S.W. 31, 614, 44 S.E.2d 227 N. C. 150, 154; Wells, tation Wells v. Van 921; Van Tinker v. 910, 1 L. R.2d and annotation 905, A. Parent Jur., Am. 390, 333, 334; 39 Tinker, 38 229 P.2d Wash.2d 17. Child, Child, S., 67 C. Parent 69; J. 630, 71 56 P. 48, 124 Cal. Anderson, also Anderson v. See 689, 690; Bor- 58 So.2d Rep. Perla, Fla., Am. Perla 17; St. v. 465, 162 591, 463, 45 A.2d Borchert, 586, 185 chert v. Md. liability father to in a 1078, (“The A. L. R. 1081 doctrine of permeated adult to have incapacitated child seems statutory country, many without the courts of this cases ex rel. Groff v. it.”); Commonwealth enactment 535, 449, 450. Groff, Super. 173 Pa. 98 A.2d chapter argument requires a consideration of Respondent’s “Support Poor”, 252A, well as under which 252 entitled brought. 252.1 in defines action was Section property, exempt no or other- “poor person” as “those who have physical disabilities, or wise, unable, and are because of mental provides parents 252.2 living earn a labor.” Section poor person person “relieve or maintain such such shall * * they upon application township *, to the trustees as, manner may states, “Upon 252.6 direct.” Section the failure such poor person relatives so to relieve or maintain a who has made * * * application relief, township may apply trustees * * * compel (Em- the district court for an order to the same.” added.) phasis application township
We have held
trustees
steps
and action
thereon are initial
which
them
must be taken
liability
Wright County
attaches under
before
v.
Hagan, 210 Iowa
relatives sought charged with the party to be states, “In all cases the question jury may trial support demand of another * * support obligation ability to render such of his and chapter requires support 252 provisions is that effect of these furnish it. who are able to parents from relatives other 490, 494-496, 219 Iowa County supra, v. Smith, Cherokee chapter 252A con- point presently, out N.W. 182. As we shall this, applied to such a case as where tains no such limitation petitioner in the and both reside same state. See 252A.3(3). attorneys respondent’s petitioner’s sole insist It is evident hope per- 252 in the he can remedy proceed under tois (see poor township or an overseer of the trustees suade the in the this unfortu- 252.4) relief of he is unable .assist appellant’s “It and been argument states: His nate son. chapter 252 public officers under would that the contention legal against present him in his financial any action institute responsible him circumstances, seeking support hold for the any amount.” his son that somewhat doubtful at best could appears support respondent by applying from have obtained to the town- poor ship an overseer of the trustees or be, relegated we are clear he should not be However chapter Even before was enacted such a course. we held provided by chapter 252 the relief was neither nor exclusive adequate against in a suit mother of a minor the divorced require him support. Addy father to to contribute to the child’s Addy, 255, 263, 264, 352, 357, 358, v. 36 N.W.2d say concerning chapter statutory we 252 and provisions: other duty support father’s
“The is not measured these right statutes. It is the of the child to and obligation receive parent to furnish to the end resort to of these statutes need not be had. statutory proceedings to which defendant refers special
“The not be so exclusive should construed. purport do not to be adequate. provided Several decisions Nor is the relief there reject arguments our conclusion heretofore cited Camp- Campbell v. example here. See to defendant’s similar 237.” bell, supra, 200 S.C. S.E.2d 50, 154 F.2d App. D.C. Simonds, 81 Simonds
See also unimportant 1142. It is annotation 326, A. L. R.2d respondent’s minor view Addy child was a here that the physical of his support petitioner because continuing life, for himself. See throughout care inability, mental authorities first cited this division hereof. 252A was respondent’s contention view absconding parent civil solely provide relief
enacted parent and child reside where both application no and it has the Act provisions of necessary to set out several Iowa it seems Emphasis sup- contrary legislative intent. which indicate a plied by us. *7 authorizing and is, “An Act chapter 252A
The title of compel proceedings procedure civil prescribing the for within dependent wives, poor children and relatives support of state,” amd without the chap- purpose of uniform “The 252A.1 states:
Section wives, dependent proceedings for support in civil ter is to secure responsible for persons legally poor from relatives children was hereto- not add “where such relief support.” does their respond- say petitioner and nor does it “where fore nonexistent” either substance of in different states.” Of course the ent are provisions easily added. could have been of these 252A.2(1) defines “state” as used Section a,s “any state, territory possession of the States and or United Plainly Iowa. the District of Columbia.” “state” includes 252A.2(4) provides: “‘Dependent’ Section shall mean * * * * * * include a child who is in need of and entitled to support person legally a who is declared to be liable for by support peti- of the. such the laws state or states wherein respondent tioner and the reside.” representative” 252A.2(7) defines “Petitioner’s
Section , county attorney public “charged other or officer include a * * * instituting a under this law with the laws of the state wherein chapter or under or states reside.” respondent petitioner amd the “ Section 252A.2(8) says, shall mean and include ‘Summons’ * * * * * * state,
a notice provided of the. or the laws states wherein respondent reside * * * means for requiring respondent appearance a proceeding pursuant chapter.” instituted to this 252A.3(1)
Section “A provides, husband in one state is hereby declared to be liable for the of his wife and * * * child or children under or residing seventeen found same state or in another having substantially state or similar * * * reciprocal laws, and required be pay sup- for their * * * port in a proceeding chapter.” instituted under this 252A.3(2)
Section provision 252A.3(1) identical with applicable to a mother of dead, a child whose father is cannot be found or incapable supporting child. It contains the of. language, same “residing or found the same state.” (3) provides: 252A.3 parents “The in one state are hereby declared severally to be liable for the of a child years age seventeen or residing older the same found state or in another having substantially state recipro- similar or laws, cal whenever such child is unable to maintain himself and likely public become a charge.” Incidentally liability imposed by 252A.3(3) is not parents confined to who are able to support. furnish provision Therein the differs from sections 252.7 and 252.12 in chapter 252 to which would rele- gate petitioner. says:
Section 252A.5 “A proceeding compel support dependent may maintained under this in any of the *8 following cases: “1. petitioner Where the respondent and the are residents * * * * * * the same state.
of * * * “4. Where respondent the was or is a resident of the initiating departed state and has departs from such state * ** leaving dependent therein a support entitled to under this * * * chapter and is believed to be a resident of another state having substantially reciprocal similar or laws.” just quoted,
Subsection application direct to this case. Subsection proceeding authorizes a chapter under 252A compel parent from a who has absconded but we can respondent’s argument entire find no sufficient for the basis application no chapter has other situation. proceeding “1. A provides:
Section 252A.6 by filing a veri chapter this shall be commenced in he petition county fied the in the of the state wherein court * * *. resides * * * a, (i.e., such respondent “2. If state” the be resident of can petitioner resides) the wherein “and court has or state acquire jurisdiction respondent under ex- person state, govern in isting laws effect in such laws shall such procedure proceeding.” control the to be followed in such respondent’s argument language of Much of rests on 252A.6(2) pro- govern section laws shall and control the “such proceeding.” this cedure to be followed in such contended interpreted existing as providing can be laws the state govern proceeding. Re- found 252 shall the entire quoted. spondent language just claims too for the much Obviously 252A.6(2), proceed- words of “such last two chapter hy proceeding peti- mean a commenced under ing”, Nothing dependent tioner court. 252 authorizes a chap- in court. court commence action township permits ter 252 one or an trustees overseer may An poor in the district court. action under institute municipal 252A.2(2). 252A brought court. Section in effect in “existing The words laws such state” refer to laws acquire jurisdiction of person under which the court “can respondent.” And the words laws” refer back to “such “existing laws.”
Further, 252A.6(2) interpretation respondent section requires provi- us the nullification of several other urges upon quoted clearly herein which indicate a sions of contrary However, thereto. legislative intent construction gives upon 252A.6(2) is reasonable and also place we effect provisions of the Act. such other 252A.6(2) respondent places
Aside some reli- “dependent” 252A.2(4) the definition of ance quoted. argued dependent It is Robert is not a heretofore within because, meaning said, act it is is not legally to be liable Robert’s the laws declared *9 (3), 252A.3 respondent Section o£ this state. this is mistaken. liability if, admitted, already quoted, expressly declares such likely if he unable to maintain Robert is himself .and charge. public become a say 252A.2(4) not “entitled does been, has, existing legally laws to be under person who declared wording 252A.6(2) of section support.” The
liable for such to' legislature intended refer that when the demonstrates Further, in it so stated. “existing laws in effect such state” division, first referred to the liabil- numerous authorities ity chapter enactment of by respondent existed before the denied argument accept respondent’s point Again, 252A. at this many chapter. nullify provisions be would chapter 252A should mentioned— One other section am, to furnish chapter be construed shall 252A.8: “This addition- way remedy, and or im- shall no civil al or alternative affect criminal, remedy, provided civil or other pair a'ivyother petitioner relation to the and available to the same statute indicated, respondent previously As contends subject matter.” notwithstanding 252A.8, 252A, does not authorize granting where it could be obtained under of relief denial of the “additional civil 252. This is a alternative expressly remedy” legislature intended 252A to fur- nish and is inconsistent with what we held law to be before Addy Addy, supra, See was enacted. 36 N.W.2d 252A.6(3 outlined in procedure 16) Some by our Rules Civil Procedure. But not authorized these apply provisions reside nothing and have to do with the in different situation states formulated and act was enacted with Further, here. adopted by many varying pro- states with thought it would be expected provisions it would contain some cedure. It is to be might previously in force some states that enact similar or reciprocal laws. Support Dependents Law”, chapter 252A,
Our “Uniform Legislative in 1948 the New York Joint was drafted Commit- Cooperation. on The Commissioners on tee Interstate Uniform
273 Re- “Uniform prepared Laws another law State later entitled] September in approved ciprocal Support Act”, of Enforcement Act earlier they disapproved the they and did so because of provides in for duties partly because drafted short, reason this In one previously provided for statute. not dis- is because the commissioners 1950 Act was formulated here respondent provisions of 1948 Act which approved the had no nullify. Evidently commissioners would, effect, in the applies Act concluding in difficulty this 1948 Uniform same state. within the petitioner respondent both and are where in 37 American from article just appears What is said the by Prof. W. Brockel- Journal, seq. et J. page Bar Association Re- the drafted the Uniform bank, chairman of committee that the Commissioners on Support of Act for ciprocal Enforcement Referring in approved Laws State Uniform says A. B. 252A) in the A. Journal (our chapter the article Act 96): (page * ** (subsection 3) the act parents
“As to c of section duty. In confusion itself is the of addition source creating noted, objection there act itself duties is a real * * ® support. of remedy passed states, if af- “Even the act were all and drastic in forded would insufficient some states too having support, In states a wider local list duties others. (where respondent both are local enforcement state) would cover eases interstate en- within same all while (where petitioner is in forcement one state * * another) incomplete *. would be Reciprocal “It is Enforcement of believed the Uniform * * *.
Support Act has avoided the difficulties mentioned Thus theory apart has no its own different or the act already existing (Emphasis law in the that under states.” added.)
If provisions chap there dissatisfaction with the apply both dependent parent 252A which reside ter remedy legislature. appeal state the is of course nullify provisions guise not these court should This Mfg. Co., What said in v. we Lorentzen Deere of construction. 502, pertinent “We 66 N.W.2d here: judges legislature spoken are not the 'wisdom; of its when the in plain terms, may we make order to rewrite statute what are we think is more desirable law. That is what we here; judicial legis invited to do we decline to enter the field of lation.” statutory con
There are other fundamental rules of struction applicable. here We will mention two. seek ing meaning of a law the entire Act and other related stat (such utes chapter 252) should be Ahrweiler considered. *11 Board of Supervisors, 229, 231, 889; Eysink 226 N.W. Iowa 283 Supervisors, Board of 1240, 1243, 376, 229 Iowa 296 N.W. N.W.2d 378; Wood Bros. (“Each Thresher Co. v. section * * [*] Eicher, must 231 construed with the 1 whole, act as a every S., section.”); with other 82 C. J. Stat utes, 345a; Jur., section Am. Statutes, 352, pages section (“All parts to 354 considered, of the act should be com pared, and together. permissible construed It is not to the rest ** * upon any part construction give one alone or to undue thereto.”). effect
Respondent give would have us undue effect to the strained places construction 252A.6(2) he section and the definition “dependent” 252A.2(4). interpretation His largely entire Act rests thereon. elementary rule, closely
The second just related to the one stated, that, fairly if possible, duty give is our effect to every part and word of an Act. Iowa Mutual Tornado Ins. Fischer, Assn. v. 65 N.W.2d 165, and argument respondent, citations. The previously explained, gives to', actually nullifies, many no effect provisions of clearly 252A chapter which seem legislature indicate the in- apply it to to such a situation tended as this. Respondent
II. a proceeding contends prosecuted by must be instituted and county 252A the attorney. stated, 252A.2(7) previously As defines a “Petitioner’s county include attorney. a representative” Section 252A.7 * * * petitioner’s of all says, representatives shall be the “It * * * * * * * * * petitioner on behalf of appear at the time petition is filed and at all there- stages * * after petitioner’s The record indicates mother first consulted an attorney attorney of her concerning proceeding. choice The turn county attorney’s sugges- and, consulted the office its at tion, attorney general’s attorney the state Evidently office. was advised (the attorney) and concluded she institute could prosecute At beginning the action and did so. county attorney trial appeared, petitioner’s assistant at re- quest, attorney brought to assist the who the action.
We persuaded are not should on decree be reversed ground attorney county appear prior open- did not to the ing of nothing the trial. There is 252A which denies petitioner right engage attorney if his own he so desires. county merely attorney’s duty statute makes it ap- pear. may forego We think a the assistance of the county attorney, prior trial, least if at he chooses. so agreed is a proceeding. the action civil—not a Or- criminal — dinarily may, course, such by any an action be instituted practicing attorney. We should not read into prohibition against procedure. such
III. 252A.3(3), before quoted, declares the severally parents are liable for of a child, older, 17 or residing in the same such state “whenever child is unable to *12 likely maintain himself and is to a public charge.” become As previously it is stated, admitted is unable maintain to argued appear himself but it is it does likely not is to he become public argument charge. largely The a is based on two answers on of Robert’s mother cross-examination that she would not public him in a she put institution and did not think he would long enough public charge. become a live to
Notwithstanding these two answers we think, as the trial sufficiently held, appears petitioner it likely court is to become public charge respondent if not does support. a contribute to his public a Clearly charge one be being without kept pub- has no means or institution. Petitioner lic income of kind to He be left is unable work. cannot alone. His mother’s home, her four-room which only property mortgaged. is is She expense earing to a bank. The also indebted for is Robert too is month. She $58 about her income herself exceeds virtually time care requires all her to it to earn because unable for her son. actually dependent that a provide
Chapter 252A does not support. to is suffi- he entitled public charge before abe furnished likely support one if is not if he to become cient himself). to maintain One (and if he is unable respondent require parents be contrib- purpose of the seems statute they to the end will not be- children support to the their ute public charges. come compelled to he cannot be Respondent contends
IV. financially because, said, it is support he contribute to his son’s unable do so. lia- not out, chapter does limit pointed we have
As parents finan- we have here bility support the situation 252A.3(3). We note that sub- furnish it. Section cially able to require respectively, support 252A.3 sections mother, possessed “if a husband and child under aof But to earn such the lan- means able means.” sufficient 252A.3(3) quoted applicable is not found in section just guage here. true, petitioner concedes, doubtless circum
It is parents and also child of both should and means stances determining amount either should contribute considered in S., Child, of a child. See 67 C. J. Parent and 721; Jur., Child, 20j(2), page Am. Parent and sec Respondent good done think that was here. has a tion We job property. civil and substantial unincumbered He has service crippled not contributed to the his son since about the boy’s The carried middle of 1949. mother has the burden of his support during property except and has no time her small inequitable mortgaged. home which is It is not support. $50 contribute a month Robert’s should complains Finally, respondent V. judgment that the does exempt operation. judgment his from its pro- homestead lien by” vides “is a real estate now or hereafter owned respondent. *13 very it is
At best doubtful if is entitled urge complaint any since homestead of character of his
277
by pleading
otherwise
the trial
or
was not
real estate
raised
prayed
judgment
to be en-
however,
Petitioner,
court.
made
lien
his real estate.
against respondent be
a
tered
679;
646, 650, 288 N.W.
Hemen-
Ayers Ayers,
v.
227 Iowa
See
Wood,
21, 23,
In In re Iowa subject (Bliss, J.), 597, 614-616 most our 29 N.W.2d many others, thoroughly are discussed. precedents, earlier with passed upon say, every occasion when this court We “On any debt-exemption applies statute question of whether awarding collecting alimony, held, agreement it has or with they generally, application.” of courts have no decisions 110; S., Homesteads, also 40 C. J. See annotations A. L. R. 106 L. R. 130 A. R. 1028. A. L.
We
held
as
have
such decree was rendered here constitutes
though
a lien on the
homestead even
it is not described
name
legal description.
Luedecke,
Luedecke v.
515;
Davis,
192 N.W.
Davis
202b it. does any business transaction but is not arise from founded on re- legal obligation natural, moral and spondent’s contribute to ,as just petitioner’s support. plane high This rests on a logic pay alimony. The of our decision in In that to re Guardian- supra, precedents ship Bagnall, controlling similar here. exemption the homestead is not alone for the *14 278 family. family is for the or head of the
benefit of the husband —it Morris, 54 v. 1950, 1954; Daniels 561.16, Codes, Guardianship Bagnall, supra, 533; In 369, 371, 532, 6 N.W. re con 614, 615. In 597, 941, 29 N.W.2d 905, 940, 238 Iowa duty of respondent owed petitioner, a to whom nection son family part is a of the although living mother, with support, his Davis, 34 Iowa v. is head. See Woods of which the benefit 264, (“Besides, homestead law is intended 265 parents. Byers, 21 Byers v. of the as well as of the children pro humane spirit It accord Iowa 269. does not with statute, divorcing and award that the of the wife visions of the interest children, deprive them of all ing of the should to her v. property [emphasis added].”) ; Williams Swet the homestead 200 N.W. Dougherty 675, 112 land, 51; White, Neb. 431; 118 annotation 425, 428, 36 A. L. R. and annotation L. R. A. supra, pages Bagnall, at Guardianship of
This from re N.W.2d, here: persuasive is Iowa, page 615 of 940, 941 of 238 * * * for the benefit homestead aré protecting the “Statutes * * * incongruous family. It would wife, and husband, liability for exemptions from unjust all of these to hold that prejudice the wife or ordinary operate to the debts should alimony as to children in a contest with the husband exemptions was to se- money principal when the reason for dependents.” (Emphasis added.) cure these respondent, right he had a true, as stated,
It is as By mother divorced him. so petitioner’s again after do, married wife and their support Ms second himself to obligated he doing mar age 15, living with her these, ofOne two minor children. living child, three, A with the adult California. ried sister marriage gone also have appears present wife. This second respondent for divorce and The wife sued the rocks.” “on nothing roof. There is separately under the same they living are obligations respondent volun marriage or subsequent in this him to furnish thereby of his which relieves tarily assumed obligation Respondent’s support. petitioner with higher than that to con children is no and their present wife support. petitioner’s tribute Winter, 335, 340, 341,
Winter v. 95 Neb. N.W. S., A., leading says ease, L. R. N. of a homestead exemption: protection family, husband, “the and not the object designed statute. never have been could escape obligations family. Why, allow a man to then, his his protect against it not family should him well protect as * * * against By getting again, ought married creditor? he *15 permitted to be to relieve himself from the burden of supporting the child that he caused to (Emphasis come into the world.” added.) Wassung Wassung, 440, 340,
See also v. 136 Neb. 286 N.W. McIlwain, 343; 705, 845, McIlwain 135 848; v. Neb. 283 N.W. Quist 257, 561; 290 Quist, v. 207 Minn. N.W. 40 C. J. S., Home steads, 110, page Newburn, 642,
Newburn 210 639, v. Iowa 231 389, N.W. remarriage husband, together holds that of the obliga with the assumed, thereby tions present change will alone such a of justifies circumstances as modification of a divorce decree reducing periodic payments the the to wife for herself and child support. Winter, v. supra, 335, Winter 95 Neb. 145 709, N.W. A., 697, 50 L. R. 703, precedents N. S., among the sup cited in port holding. It is also in opinion relied on dissenting Schooley in Schooley, v. 184 835, Iowa 857, 858, 169 56, N.W. L. A. R. 122, which Moore, Malone v. 58, 62, Iowa 236 N.W. 100, adopts presenting the better rule. —Affirmed.
Bliss, Oliver, Wennerstrum, Larson, JJ., Thompson, concur.
Hats and Mulroney, JJ., dissent. (dissenting) J. a case an incapaci adult Hays, —In seeking support tated from his father, residing child both court, Iowa, equity, grants the trial as a court of such relief and majority appeals. The opinion father affirms the trial court respectfully and I dissent. opinion upon
The propositions: affirms two (1) inherent power equity of (2) chapter of a court 252A, Code of 1950. Both, my opinion, are unsound. power equity, irrespective
I. As of a of any court of statute: rely Addy Addy, appears opinion quoting therefrom as follows: 36 N.W.2d is not measured these duty 'support
“The father’s of statutes. obligation of the child to receive and the right It is the end these parent support furnish resort of stat Addy course, way case no utes need not be had.” Of applicable material or law announced there to the instant of child to right case. It involved a mi/nor receive parents. right its This case is concerned with the an incapacitated support. adult child receive equity when a states court 611.4, Code of statutory says It authorization. that may in the act absence equity had in all cases where courts of equity action adoption ap- this Code. It first jurisdiction had before no but at com- There is doubt pears in Revision of 1860. adoption Code, duty was law, long mon before his mmor child recognized parent owed a equity. determined does not follow and the matter was *16 jurisdiction in equity the case of adults. this, that the to the effect that common opinion in the The statement an incapacitated in of adult exception the ease recognized law an not, support him is in parent to duty upon a the child and cast supported by not the and is my opinion, a correct statement only 910. The Iowa case 1 A. L. R.2d authorities. Annotation in duty a does exist Addy, supra. Such Addy v. cited is years, solely but than a hundred for more and has existed 1851, in of appear the Code which first under statutes 252, of Not was chapter Code found in and now procedure for its enforcement but the duty the there created jury trial, request, and is for a provides was It outlined. (section of 1851 law court. Section Code a matter for the County Hagan, 1950). Wright In of 252.12, Code compliance with court held a strict 231 N.W. this majority recovery. effect, prerequisite to' statute was a ignore The does the statute. would overrule this decision and though recognized, attributed created statute unknown, pro- entirely new, and heretofore law,'and common chapter 252 adopted. may provisions that cediire be majority, inadequate are and cumbersome as claimed 'the but legislature-and it is for the not the court to correct. Even as- suming chapter remedy 252A in creates new civil cases type consideration, the matter is still triable at law, chapter grant equity right. since the said does not equity, procedure
While the instant case was tried such requested by respondent predicated was and no error However, legislature thereon. until and adopts unless the procedure here, rule I along sanctioned will ride with the legislative they enactments as now exist. majority proposition opin-
II. advanced The second petitioner chapter 252A entitled to the ion is that under relief proposition correct, Assuming asked. this to be the sole instance attempted petitioner comply provisions with the even chapter filing petition was the district court. apparently From then on both and trial court lost sight proceeded of the statute and under an assumed inherent right equity. in a court opinion
Two are advanced in factors as a basis for hold- ing chapter applicable. 252A to be
(1). throughout It is said that repeated is found reference to the existing situation found case; that sec- 252A.3(3) tion specifically specifies such shall be dealt with provisions chapter. under the of said It is conceded that the chapter does refer to such a situation, and standing alone such appear reference would chapter applicable. to make the How- ever, respectfully I that, submit when read and examined in the light of wording purpose clear intent chapter, apparent it is legislative such was not the intent. Section 10, chapter 103, Fifty-third Acts of the Assembly, General appearing 252A appears as it Code, in the would seem applicable to be just intended to meet such a situation.
(2). question, far being real so appli- *17 here, procedure cable is one of and not substantive law—with the remedy right. majority opinion The does not contend —not chapter that this right, creates a new except substantive perhaps ability parent pay. as to the of the by The created 1851, chapter 252, Code now 1950, Code of recognized. is procedural a that creates new claimed
It is petitioner peti- a 252A.6(1) authorizes file right. Section county he It resides. court of the wherein in the district tion this, by proceeding “A be commenced says, under shall petition court filing a in the petitioner a verified [district] * * mine.) (Italics applicable In this cases right. later procedural a new This discussed does create my opinion, any right, case, It in in create this herein. does procedural or otherwise. 252A.6(2) “If resi- provides: respondent be a in and petition of or such
dent domiciled state [where filed] acquire jurisdiction person court has can of the of the laws, existing state, in respondent such such laws under in effect govern in such procedure shall and control to be followed proceeding.” (Italics mine.) nothing opinion, means more majority this section
Under the govern and control the manner laws shall than that local into I court is served. think bring which the notice to significant It meaning. is somewhat a much broader it has dealing in (3) (4), and with 252A.6, subsections juris state, reside in the parties do' not same stances where the giving summons, without reference diction is attained opinion majority say upon this The existing laws. “ proceeding’ com question: ‘such means this chapter by does, It court.” menced filing “every of the “proceedings” step term from the means controversy. petition until the final of the determination process”, includes and service International issuance 510, Paper Commonwealth, Co. v. 232 Mass. N.E. Scott, 246 N.W. Trust Co. v. See also Bankers opinion says: ‘existing “The laws 836. The further words the court ‘can effect such state’ refer to laws under which ” jurisdiction They acquire person respondent.’ do say and, contend, light I more read in much when says (252A.6(2)) the entire further “such section. govern procedure to be followed laws shall control the (Italics mine.) Court, proceeding.” such Bascom v. District “practice” N.W.2d said that *18 “procedure” steps include the mode of and the legal right distinguished is -which a enforced as from the law protects creates, rights. Thus, which and under defines our deci- sions, “procedure” appear “proceedings” these words to be synonymous appear unless it should that one or the other is used majority in a more opinion restricted sense. The would limit meaning “procedure” the the term of serving of the notice. Assuming correct, appear this to be there does be to given like limitation to “proceedings.” Irrespective the term of may the sense which these two words be used both refer remedy presumed the right, and it must be that the for which they provide the is remedy, existent. Jurisdiction of the re- spondent, here, imply jurisdiction; as used must an effective power act, jurisdiction with which means the court has of subject the matter. No inadequate matter be, how law might the if, existing laws in irrespective effect in the chap- state of 252A, provision ter legislature has been made for the question to be determined in state, of courts such laws must This, me, be resorted to. it seems to is the clear intent and meaning 252A.6(2). of section Chapter such, 252 provides both right as to remedy. provision in chapter 252A for the filing petition aof in the by petitioner may court applicable states, to some reciprocal which as a adopt measure a like stat- ute, but is inapplicable in Iowa. express
It meaning seems to me that above and .applica- tion is further light fortified when read purpose chapter. intent of the entitled “Uniform Support Dependents Throughout Law.” is found repeated reference to having substantially “another state sim- reciprocal ilar or laws.” The except entire method of procedure, serving notice, foreign our Rules of Civil Procedure.
From time primary duty immemorial been has poor. state to care for its own Since the Code 1851 laws have whei'eby existed in might be shifted certain parties they named were amenable our courts. It is of no concern how to Iowa other problems. states handle like However, growing with the number of eases where the one liable departed beyond into another state and reach state, home leaving dependents his burden of the Only and if the state problem was when created.
state, a serious opens courts for the enforce- departed its party has which remedy would civil duty existing another state ment aof *19 adopted meet the situa- law was This uniform be available. yours” my I’ll scratch “you scratch back tion. It is sort says be construed to fur- arrangement. 252A.8 it “shall remedy and no alternative civil shall nish an additional or criminal, pro- any remedy, impair civil way affect or other in rela- other statute madwble vided mine.) clearly subject (Italics It is tion to the same matter.” absentee, recovery from an remedy an in that it allows additional remedy an previously exist. It alternative which did not remedy. provide existed, i.e., civil It does previously as none remedy. remedy existing was a criminal there alternative in that chap- safeguards against claim under this that remedy. Vincenza, criminal Vincenza precludes ter use my judgment, 98 Y. 197 Misc. N. S.2d diversity application be of citi- must limited cases where zenship is involved. majority
III. II of A brief Division comment opinion: says duty petition- Section 252A.7 that it is representative appear stages proceedings er’s at all filing petition. from the time of the In the lower court the County Attorney’s only appeared office when the actual trial only commenced and then a friend of the court. He took no part argument active no the trial files brief and here. I reasoning adopted majority opin- am follow unable to ion, specific as a more directive of a would hard phrase. peti- 252A not available to the that
I hold would proper case; remedy; is the in this tioner I law. would reverse at the decree triable a matter it is court. the trial J., joins this dissent.
Mulroney,