In re Snyder
Washington Supreme Court
532 P.2d 278 (1975)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Sixteen-year-old Cynthia Snyder (plaintiff) chafed at the restrictions her parents, Paul and Nell Snyder (defendants), had been trying to impose on Cynthia throughout her adolescence. Frustrated by her rebelliousness, Paul placed Cynthia in a youth-services center. Once there, Cynthia decided never to return home. Invoking the state’s juvenile-court law, Cynthia petitioned to have the county juvenile court declare her a dependent ward in need of the court’s protection against unfit parents. The court rejected the petition and returned Cynthia to her home, where she resumed acrimonious relations with her parents. A month later, Cynthia returned to the youth-services center and filed a new petition to have herself declared dependent, this time by virtue of her own incorrigibility. A juvenile-court commissioner convened a hearing on Cynthia’s petition. Cynthia testified that she adamantly refused to return home. This testimony, as well as the testimony of Cynthia’s parents, sister, counselor, and psychiatrist, persuaded the commissioner that Cynthia’s conduct and behavior had put Cynthia so far beyond her parents’ control and power as to render her incorrigible. The commissioner placed Cynthia in foster care and ordered ongoing court-supervised family counseling. The juvenile court affirmed the commissioner’s determination. Cynthia’s parents appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hunter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.