Betts v. Betts
473 P.2d 403 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child's out-of-court statements are not inadmissible hearsay when they are offered not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but as circumstantial evidence of the child's state of mind, which is a relevant factor in determining the child's best interest in a custody proceeding.
Facts:
- After a California divorce decree granted custody of two children to their mother, Rita A. Betts, she moved with them to Washington and began living with Raymond Don Caporale.
- On August 6, 1968, the 2-year-old son, James Michael Betts, died from internal injuries and multiple bruises while under the care of his mother and Caporale.
- Following the son's death, the 5-year-old daughter, Tracey Lynn, was placed in a foster home in Washington by a juvenile court.
- Rita Betts married Raymond Caporale, the man who had been charged with murdering her son, and they established a home in California.
- While in foster care, Tracey Lynn repeatedly told her foster mother that Caporale "killed my brother and he’ll kill my mommie too" and referred to him as "mean."
- The children's father, Michael E. Betts, remarried and established a stable home in Washington.
Procedural Posture:
- A California court entered a final divorce decree on September 6, 1968, awarding custody of the children to the mother, Rita A. Betts.
- On August 9, 1968, the Thurston County Juvenile Court in Washington ordered the daughter, Tracey Lynn, into protective custody.
- In September 1968, the Juvenile Court made Tracey Lynn a temporary ward of the court and placed her in a supervised foster home.
- On October 21, 1968, the father, Michael E. Betts, commenced an action in Thurston County Superior Court (a Washington trial court) to modify the California custody decree.
- The mother, appearing as the defendant, contested the Washington court's jurisdiction to modify the California decree.
- The trial court found it had jurisdiction and, after a hearing, granted the father's petition, awarding him custody of the daughter.
- The mother, Rita A. Betts, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a child's out-of-court statements about a parent's new spouse, offered not to prove the truth of the statements but to show the child's state of mind, violate the hearsay rule in a child custody modification proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Armstrong, C. J.
No. Admitting a child's out-of-court statements to show the child's state of mind, and not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, does not violate the hearsay rule. The court reasoned that the statements were not admitted to prove that the stepfather, Caporale, had killed the child's brother, but rather to show the child's fear and negative perception of him. This mental state is highly relevant to the central issue in a custody case: the child's best interest. The court determined that evidence of these feelings was admissible as non-hearsay circumstantial evidence of the child's state of mind, which would indicate a "strained relationship" if she were placed in her mother's custody. Because the statements were not hearsay, the child's competency to testify as a witness was not a barrier to their admission for this purpose.
Analysis:
This case establishes an important clarification of the hearsay rule within the context of family law, particularly in child custody disputes. It allows courts to consider a child's expressed feelings and fears, even when conveyed through a third party, by classifying them as non-hearsay evidence of the child's state of mind. This prioritizes the "best interest of the child" standard over a rigid application of evidentiary rules, giving judges a crucial tool to assess a child's psychological welfare. The decision signals that in custody matters, the relevance of a child's emotional state can justify the admission of statements that might otherwise be excluded, especially when the child is too young to testify directly.
