§28.02 Obligation to Pay Child Support
Jurisdiction | Washington |
§ 28.02 OBLIGATION TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT
The obligation of a parent to support a child is imposed by the common law and by statute. An early formulation of the responsibility was set forth in In re Hudson, 13 Wn.2d 673, 693, 126 P.2d 765 (1942): "that parents are under obligation to provide their minor children with necessities of life is a principle of natural law." This generalized, broad obligation continues to the present: "A parent's obligation for the care and support of his or her child is a basic tenet recognized in this state without reference to any particular statute." State v. Wood, 89 Wn.2d 97, 100, 569 P.2d 1148 (1977); see Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bunt, 110 Wn.2d 368, 754 P.2d 993 (1988); State v. Norman, 61 Wn. App. 16, 808 P.2d 1159, review denied, 117 Wn.2d 1018 (1991) (common-law duty to provide medical treatment for one's child); In re Marriage of Olsen, 24 Wn. App. 292, 600 P.2d 690 (1979) (court has inherent authority to order parent to pay support). A domestic partner is liable to the same extent as a parent or stepparent. RCW 26.16.205; RCW 26.09.100. See Chapter 12 of this deskbook.
At common law, a parent either was the biological mother or the biological father of a child. The parent-child relationship is biologically established at conception and matures at birth. Adoption did not exist at common law. It is a statutory process that allows a person not biologically a parent to become a parent. Ch. 26.33 RCW. In adoption, the parent-child relationship is established after birth, after investigation, and upon entry of a judicial decree of adoption. The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), [Chapters 26.26A and 26.26B RCW], is another statutory process for determining that a parent-child relationship does or does not exist. Under the UPA, a parent is either a natural parent or an adoptive parent. A natural parent includes a parent who is biologically related to the child and includes one who is otherwise determined to be a parent under the act.
State ex rel. D.R.M. v. Wood, 109 Wn. App. 182, 189, 34 P.3d 887 (2001).
Liability for support cannot be based on the doctrines of equitable estoppel or breach of promise. Id. at 186.
[1] Defining "Duty of Support"
The concept of "duty of support" is not explained in chapter 26.19 RCW, but is defined in chapter 26.18 RCW, the child support enforcement chapter.
"Duty of support" means the duty to provide for the needs of a dependent child, which may include necessary food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care. The duty includes any obligation to make monetary payments, to pay expenses, including maintenance in cases in which there is a dependent child, or to reimburse — another person or an agency for the cost of necessary support furnished a dependent child. The duty may be imposed by court order, by operation of law, or otherwise.RCW 26.18.020(3) (emphasis added). This definition was enacted by Laws of 1984, ch. 260, § 2. The statute sets forth a very broad duty of supporting dependent children, while specifically referencing financial support within that definition. The final sentence of the definition concerning enforceable financial support obligations is primarily at issue in this action.
State v. Burns, 190 Wn. App. 826, 832, 363 P. 3d 1 (2015) (quoting RCW 26.18.020(3), now codified at RCW 26.18.020(5)).
[2] Relationship of the Parties
The right of an individual to bring an action for support depends upon the form of action and the nature of the support sought. It is useful to examine the relationship of the three parties involved in a child support case in general terms before discussing specific remedies. This relationship transcends the individual causes of action and defines the rights of the parties.
The first party is the obligor who pays child support. The second party is the residential or custodial parent who receives the support as the child's trustee and has no personal interest in the child support collected. Hartman v. Smith, 100 Wn.2d 766, 674 P.2d 176 (1984); Mosher v. Mosher, 25 Wn.2d 778, 172 P.2d 259 (1946). "A child's custodian receives support money as a trustee and not in his or her own right." Fuqua v. Fuqua, 88 Wn.2d 100, 105, 558 P.2d 801 (1977) (citing Ditmar v. Ditmar, 48 Wn.2d 373, 293 P.2d 759 (1956); Roberts v. Roberts, 69 Wn.2d 863, 420 P.2d 864 (1966)).
Although the residential parent acts as a "trustee," trust law...
To continue reading
Request your trial