Harmon v. Department of Social and Health Services
Washington Supreme Court
951 P.2d 770 (1998)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Edward Harmon (plaintiff) married the divorced mother of two daughters, thereby becoming the girls’ stepfather. Seven years later, the girls left the Harmons and went to live with their biological father, to whom the family court transferred legal custody. Harmon remained married to the girls’ biological mother, and therefore, an administrative-law judge (ALJ) for the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (department) (defendant) ruled that Harmon had an ongoing obligation to help support the girls financially. The ALJ’s ruling was based in part on the state’s 1881 family-expenses statute, which made both spouses in a marriage equally responsible for supporting their children. That statute had been amended in 1969 to provide that, with respect to stepchildren, the dissolution of a stepparent’s marriage would terminate the stepparent’s legal obligations toward the stepchildren. After an intermediate appellate court affirmed the ALJ’s ruling, Harmon appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which construed the family-expenses statute in light of the state’s child-support statute, which made the respective incomes of the biological parents the determining factor in calculating child-support payments.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Guy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
