Green v. GreenGreen v. Green
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Halley
Pаrties will be referred to according to their positions in the trial court or by name.
Blanche Greеn and Van Burén Green were married in Dallas, Texas, on September 2, 1951. The parties have not been divоrced although Blanche Green did file an action for divorce. On September 3, 1954, Blanche Green gave birth to a child Sylvia Gayle Green.
At the time of his marriage to Blanche Green, said Van Burén Green wаs married to and undivorced from Hazel Green to whom he was married on July 6, 1942.
On March 11, 1955, Blanche Green filеd an action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, against Van Burén Green for the support of Sylvia Gayle Green and alleged it was the child of Van Burén Green. California and Oklahoma have аdopted the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. West’s Ann. Cal.Code Civ.Proc. § 1650 еt seq. Ours became effective June 8, 1953.
From the aforementioned judgment Van Burén Green has appealed.
Three points are raised in defendant’s brief:
1. That the minor child involved in this action is illegitimate and the court erred as a matter оf law in finding otherwise.
2. The child being illegitimate, the District Court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine this actiоn.
3. Under the terms of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, the District .Court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine this action regardless of the status of the child.
With defendant’s proposition one, we cannot agree. Section 215, 84 O.S.1951, provides among other things as follows:
“ * * * The issue of аll marriages null in law, or dissolved by divorce, are legitimate.”
It is unquestioned that plaintiff and defendant went thrоugh a ceremonial marriage, were living together as husband and wife when the child was conceivеd. The foregoing statute has been construed to control in a case of this kind and a child born under suсh circumstances is legitimate. Jones v. Hyndman, 160 Okl. 61, 15 P.2d 582; In re Atkins’ Estate, 151 Okl. 294, 3 P.2d 682, 84 A.L.R. 491; Atkins v. Rust, 168 Okl. 645, 33 P.2d 799; Sisney v. Sisney, 132 Okl. 90, 269 P. 349.
The fact that this provision of our statutes is found under the seсtions on. Wills and Succession does not diminish its force or validity. We agree with the statement in 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 275, p. 461:
“In gеneral, the location of statutes in particular places in codes does not affeсt their force or validity.”
Certainly no Legislature would intend to say that a child was legitimate as to inheritance and illegitimate as to whom should support it. To us there is no question but that the child involved in this casе is legitimate.
Because of our holding on the first proposition we see no necessity to discuss thе defendant’s second.
Neither can we agree with the defendant’s third contention that regardless оf whether the child involved in this case was legitimate or illegitimate the District Court had no authority to’ proceed with the case under the terms of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Suppоrt Act. Title 12, Section 1600.21, supra, provides as follows :
“If the court of the responding state finds a duty of support, it may order the respondent to furnish support or reimbursement therefor and subject the property of the respondent to such order. Laws 1953, p. 63, § 21.”
The State of Oklahoma is the responding State in this case. We said in Yahola v. Berryhill, 180 Okl. 637, 71 P.2d 968, 972, that the supervision of the courts of this State over the custody and welfare of children is of itself equitable and not strictly legal in its nature. This Court made a further statement-in the Yаhola case which we think applies to this case and is as follows:
“Both by statute and the commоn law the father is charged with the support of his minor, unmarried, legitimate child. Such duty is unquestioned. All parties whо could be interested or affected were properly before the court. Therefore the court had jurisdiction of the parties. It was within the power of the court to make such orders as would best insure the proper care of the child. The order of support, in our opinion, was а matter within the discretion of the court, and he was empowered to make such order of his own mоtion, regardless of whether the pleadings sought support money. * * * ”
Since -we find that the District Court of Oklahоma County had jurisdiction in *279 this matter and both Oklahoma and California have the Uniform Reciprocal Enfоrcement of Support Act, the provisions of the Oklahoma Act of 1953 apply in this case and will be enforced. For an interesting discussion of similar Acts see Com. ex rel. Shaffer v. Shaffer, 175 Pa.Super. 100, 103 A.2d 430, 42 A.L.R.2d 768.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD, JACKSON, and CARLILE, JJ., concur.