It has been the practice in this
state that “arrearages in alimony and support payments do not constitute a debt
within meaning of the constitutional prohibition.”
McFerran v. McFerran,(1960) 55 Wash. 2d. 471, 475, 348 P. 2d. 222
citing
Decker v. Decker,(1958) 52
Wash. 2d. 456, 458, 326 P. 2d. 332 and cases cited.
The cases cited all point back to In re Cave,(1901) 26 Wash. 213, 216, 66
P. 425 which reads in part:
It is
well settled law of this country that a decree or order of alimony in a divorce
proceeding is not a debt, within the meaning of that term as used in
§17 of
article I of our constitution.
Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U.S. 575 (21
Sup. Ct. 735); Barclay v. Barclay,
184 Ill. 375 (56 N.E. 636, 51 A.L.R. 351)
Audubon,
also at 45 L. Ed. 1009 is a classic decision providing that alimony shall not
be dischargeable in bankruptcy, which is now codified as
11 U.S.C.
§523(a)(5). At
181 U.S. 579 it quotes Barclay at 56 N.E. 637:
The
liability to pay alimony is not founded upon a contract, but it is a penalty
imposed for a failure to perform a duty.
Child support, then considered an
element of alimony, was also considered a penalty.
At the turn of the century, sexual
intercourse outside of marriage was considered to be highly immoral. Per this belief, abortion was illegal, sodomy
laws were brutally enforced against homosexuals, and paternity proceedings were
considered to be quasi-criminal in nature, the child support thus resulting to
serve a punitive purpose.
Also at the turn of the century,
divorce could only be obtained upon the establishment of “grounds”, that is,
the petitioner had to prove that respondent “wronged” her somehow. Grounds included adultery, abandonment, abuse
or cruelty, and conviction of a crime resulting in imprisonment. The requirement that wrongdoing be proved was
an important due process protection against the imposition of an onerous burden
of alimony and child support. Alimony
was then considered to be more than a tort judgment and to be tantamount to
restitution.
That is why parents so unfortunate
as to lose custody of their children have been imprisoned: the child support was considered a
PENALTY and imprisonment for nonpayment
furthers the punitive purpose.
Like any fine imposed upon
conviction of a crime, it was not considered a debt within meaning of
Article I
Section 17 of the Washington Constitution because it was considered a
PENALTY.
In 1915, punitive damages were not
recoverable in this state. Therefore,
judgments in an action for a tort were debts and the judgment debtors cannot be
imprisoned under execution against their persons. Such cannot be justified as a punishment for
a wrong done. Bronson v. Syverson, (1915) 88 Wash. 264,
152 P. 1039.
The basic rule for interpreting
Article I Section 17 is that if a monetary obligation is not a penalty or
imposed to serve a punitive purpose, then it cannot be enforced with contempt
proceedings, arrest, and imprisonment.
The
Supreme Court of Washington has
continued this basic rule of interpretation of
Article I Section 17 in its
decision upholding the Court of Appeals reversal of a conviction of second
degree theft. Without a written
estimate, a mechanic did not have a sufficient property interest in an
automobile that was taken back by its owner without payment for the repairs, to
allege the element of theft or intent to defraud. The money due for repairs was thus merely a
debt(arising out of implied contract) for which the owner cannot be
imprisoned.
State v. Pike, (1992) 118 Wash. 2d. 585, 595, 826 P. 2d. 152.
Statute that defined failure to pay
for agricultural products as a crime is unconstitutional on its face because it
did not include the element to defraud as an element of the crime. Without that element, the value of the
agricultural products is merely a debt.
State v. Enloe, (1987) 47 Wash. App. 165,
734 P. 2d. 520.
But since 1901, even since 1960 when
the
McFerran case was decided, we
have seen the rise of no fault divorce legislation. We have seen numerous
United States Supreme
Court decisions finding that marriage, procreation, use of contraceptives, and
abortion are fundamental rights. Such
decisions include
Griswold v. Connecticut,(1965)
381 U.S. 497, 14 L. Ed. 2d. 510, 85 S. Ct. 1687 and
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, (1992) 505 U.S. 833, 870, 120 L. Ed.
2d. 674, 112 S. Ct. 2791.
Abortion cannot be “unduly
burdened”, it cannot be defined as a crime.
As the potential father has no say in whether to abort or to carry the
child to term, it would unduly burden’s the woman’s choice to even require that
he be informed of the pregnancy; he cannot be said to have done wrong for
becoming a father, inside or outside of marriage. It is
not his choice!
Stanley
v. Illinois,(1972) 405 U.S. 645, 31 L. Ed. 2d. 551, 92 S. Ct. 1208 firmly
rejected the irrebuttable presumption that an unwed father is an unfit parent,
and it established that he is entitled to equal protection as to the fundamental
right to due process of law. So is the
respondent.
In
Zablocki v. Redhail,(1978) 434 U.S. 374, 384-386, 54 L. Ed. 2d.
618, 98 S. Ct. 673 Justice Marshall wrote:
For
example, last Term in
Carey v. Population
Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 52 L. Ed. 2d. 675, 97 S. Ct. 2010
(1977), we declared:
“While
the outer limits of (the right to personal privacy) have not been marked by the
Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without
unjustified governmental interference are personal decisions relating to
marriage.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 2, (1967); procreation,
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535,
541-542, contraception,
Eisenstadt v.
Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454, 31 L. Ed. 2d. 349, 92 S. Ct. 1029, id. at 460, 463-465, (White, J.,
concurring in result); family relationships,
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S.
Ct. 438 (1944); and child rearing and education,
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45
S. Ct. 571, (1925);
Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390, 399, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1925).’”
Id.,
at 684-685, 52 L. Ed. 2d. 675 quoting
Roe
v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-153, 35 L. Ed. 2d. 147, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973).
See
also
Cleveland Board of Education v.
LaFluer, 414 U.S. 632, 639-640, 39 L. Ed. 2d. 52, 94 S. Ct. 791 (1974)
(“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of
marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process
Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.”);
Smith
v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 842-844, 53 L. Ed. 2d.
14, 97 S. Ct. 2094 (1977);
Moore v. East
Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499, 52 L. Ed. 2d. 531, 97 S. Ct. 1932 (1977);
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 713, 47 L.
Ed. 2d. 405, 96 S. Ct. 1155 (1976).
It is
not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of
importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and
family relationships. As the facts of
this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right to
privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to
the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in
our society. The woman whom appellee
desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected
child, see
Roe v. Wade, supra, or to
bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic,
disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings, see
Trimble v. Gordan, 430 U.S. 762, 768-770, and note 13, (1977),
Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.,
406 U.S. 164, 175-176 (1972). Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child
in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee’s right to procreate means
anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in
which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.
No punitive purpose can be given
effect to any alimony or child support order arising from a no-fault divorce or
paternity proceeding if based solely on the parent and child relationship, and
not based on any wrongdoing beyond the exercise of these fundamental rights,
without violating the due process and bill of attainder provisions of the
Washington and United States Constitutions.
Nothing in the state laws define
child support to be any kind of a penalty for wrongdoing, but simply a monetary
requirement against the noncustodial parent for the support of the child:
RCW
26.09.050-060, 26.09.100-135,
26.16.205,
26.18,
26.19,
26.21,
26.23,
26.26,
74.20, and
74.20A.
Therefore, child support is a debt within Article I Section 17 because it is not a penalty. To further any punitive purpose in the enforcement of a child support order that is based solely on the parent and child relationship and the lack of custody of the child by the parent deprives the parent of his liberty without due process of law in violation of Article I Section 3 of the Washington Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Decker finding that
Article I Section 17
is intended for contractual debts and for some torts and not for alimony and
child support ignores the deliberate decision in 1889 to not limit it to "debts
arising out of contracts". Such language can be found in the imprisonment
for debt provisions of some other state constitutions, which are found, by their
language, to not embrace alimony and child support as such are not founded upon
contract. Example:
Because what is involved here is the
imprisonment of the respondent, the
strict scrutiny standard must apply for his equal protection claim. In
P.O.P.S.
v. Gardner, (9th Cir. 1993)
In Commonwealth v. MacKenzie,(1975) 368 Mass. 613, 334 N.E. 2d. 613,
the Massachusetts court determined that defining criminal liability for
fathering a child out of wedlock without concurrent criminal liability for the
mother of that same child denied equal protection of the laws.
In Commonwealth v. Staub,(1975) 461 Pa. 486, 337 A. 2d. 258 the
Pennsylvania court found that fornication and bastardy statute that placed
primary responsibility for support of illegitimate child on the father created
a classification not related to the state interest. Since the unwed mother was not liable to the
same extent of the unwed father, the statute violated equal protection by
providing different punishment for identical conduct solely on the basis of the
gender of the party.
The custodial parent of the child
has as much moral responsibility to provide for the needs of the child as the
noncustodial parent. The child support
schedule law,
RCW 26.19, purports to qualify her obligation in financial terms
based on her income earning capacity.
But because none of this money changes hands, there is no way of
monitoring whether or not she is contributing her fair share toward the support
of her children. Even if she is
voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, she is not under the constant threat
of contempt proceedings, arrest, and imprisonment for failing to support her
children. Indeed, if she were
unemployed, even voluntarily, and without income from a husband or ex-husband,
the state’s welfare agency will give her a monthly stipend under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program.
Same is true for parents who remain
married and retain custody of their children.
It is only those parents without
custody of their children who are subject to contempt proceedings under
RCW
26.18.050. This statute creates a
classification that is not rationally related to the state’s interest in the
support of its children.
The practical effect of Washington’s
child support statutes in general and
RCW 26.18.050 in particular, is that ONLY the NONcustodial
parents are legally required to support their children. Custodial parents have NO such legal requirement!
It is against ONLY the NONcustodial parent that the
punitive purpose of child support that originally justified imprisonment for
such debts is imposed. Such punitive
purpose is no longer valid. In
Zablocki, supra, noncustodial parents
ordered to pay child support could not be denied equal protection where such
distinction is not rationally related to a legitimate interest of government.
RCW 26.18.050 thus violates the Fourteenth Amendment requirement for equal protection of the laws.
RESERVATION OF THE RIGHT TO SEEK
FEDERAL RELIEF
The
respondent reserves the right to seek relief in federal court under
42 U.S.C.
§1983, 28 U.S.C. §2254 and any other applicable federal statute. See
Migra v. Warren City
School Dist. Bd. of Educ., (1984) 465
If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.