In re Infant Parsons
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Donworth, Hunter, Finley, Weaver, McGovern
This appeal arises out of a judgment in an adoption proceeding wherein Mr. and Mrs. S. petitioned to adopt a female infant who was born out of wedlock on September 28, 1967.
Prior to the birth of the infant the state, on behalf of the natural mother as complaining witness, instituted a filiation proceeding against the natural father (appellant) pursuant to the provisions of
On September 20, 1967, 8 days prior to the birth of the infant, appellant‘s attorney prepared an amended judgment in the filiation proceeding, which was entered by the trial court with the consent of the Prosecuting Attorney for Thurston County. This amended judgment was entered without notice or disclosure to the natural mother or anyone designated to act for her in a legal capacity. The principal amendment to the judgment, originally issued on March 27, 1967, which is the subject of this controversy, reads in part as follows:
[T]hat said minor child hereinafter to be born to .. . [natural mother] shall not be adopted by any person or persons whomsoever without the full knowledge and writing consent of the defendant . . . [appellant].
The infant was born on September 28, 1967. Subsequently, on September 30, 1967, a petition for adoption was presented to the trial court by petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. S. The petition alleged that the natural mother had consented in writing to the adoption of the infant by petitioners. The petition also asked that the mother of the natural mother be appointed as guardian ad litem pursuant to the provisions of
On December 28, 1967 an amended petition for adoption was filed in the trial court alleging that the natural mother had previously consented to the adoption of the child in writing, and the mother of the natural mother had been
The amended petition was answered by appellant on January 8, 1968. In his answer, appellant set up the amended judgment entered in the filiation proceeding and alleged that he had not consented to the adoption prayed for in the amended petition, and did not intend to consent to it. Additionally, appellant prayed that the amended petition for adoption be dismissed and that the infant child be returned to the natural mother.
On March 27, 1968, the Superior Court for Thurston County conducted a hearing to determine the validity of that part of the amended judgment in the filiation proceeding above quoted. As a result of the hearing in the adoption proceeding to determine the status of appellant, the trial court, on May 31, 1968, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment to the effect that the reservation of consent in appellant to future adoption proceedings involving the infant was beyond the provisions of
This appeal arises from the aforementioned hearing in the adoption proceeding in which the trial court determined that appellant‘s consent was not necessary to effect an order of adoption involving the infant. Appellant sets forth four assignments of error which specifically challenge the conclusions of law entered in the March 27, 1968 hearing. The main issue presented by these assignments is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the disputed amended order in the filiation proceeding. If it did not, then there is no merit in any of the assignments of error asserted by appellant.
Under the provisions of
Our review of the provisions of
In contrast to
[1, 2] If we were to uphold the validity of the trial court‘s entry of the amended order in the filiation proceeding, we would thereby circumvent the rule of law in this state which provides that rights of adoption are created by
[3] In Arneson v. Arneson, 38 Wn.2d 99, 227 P.2d 1016 (1951), we had before us a divorce proceeding in which the trial court exceeded its authority under the divorce act and decreed a liquidation of the property for the benefit of creditors as an incident to the issuance of the divorce decree. The question before us at that time was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the questioned judgment. At 38 Wn.2d 100-01, we said:
Divorce, probate, bankruptcy, receiverships, and assignments for the benefit of creditors are statutory proceedings, and the jurisdiction and authority of the courts are prescribed by the applicable legislative enactment. In them the court does not have any power that can not be inferred from a broad interpretation of the act in question. The powers of the court in probate and receiverships can not be imported into the divorce act. Whether or not the court exceeded its jurisdiction in the case at bar, must be determined from the language of the divorce act of 1949.
Nowhere in the act is the court empowered to exercise the prerogatives peculiar to other statutory proceedings....
. . .
Since the divorce act nowhere provides for it, the court has no power to compel a liquidation for the benefit of creditors as an incident to a divorce decree. Nor can any
of the statutory proceedings, having that as its purpose, be consolidated with a divorce action for trial.
Although different statutes were involved in our resolution of the Arneson case, we think the reasoning therein can be applied to the instant case. The adoption statutes in
In view of the express provisions of
We have thoroughly reviewed the various assignments of error presented by appellant. In light of our disposition of this cause, we find they have no merit.
The trial court‘s determination that appellant has no standing to question the adoption is affirmed, and the cause, therefore, is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HUNTER, C.J., FINLEY, WEAVER, and McGOVERN, JJ., concur.