## Facts

- A California divorce decree (1968) awarded custody of the parties’ children to the mother.
- The mother moved to Washington with the children and lived with her companion, Raymond Don Caporale.
- The parties’ young son died in Washington from severe injuries; Caporale was charged with second-degree murder but acquitted for lack of evidence.
- A Washington juvenile court placed the parties’ daughter (age five) in protective foster care and made her a temporary ward of the court, including to secure her as a material witness.
- The father moved to Washington, remarried, and filed in Washington superior court to modify the California custody decree and obtain custody.
- At the custody hearing, the foster mother testified to the child’s spontaneous statements indicating fear of Caporale (e.g., that he was “mean” and that he killed her brother and might kill her mother).
- The superior court asserted jurisdiction, admitted the foster mother’s testimony, and awarded custody to the father; the mother appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington courts had jurisdiction to modify a California custody decree after a Washington juvenile court made the child a temporary ward of the court.
2. Whether the foster mother’s testimony recounting the child’s out-of-court statements was inadmissible hearsay, including given the child’s young age.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in modifying custody from the mother to the father.

## Decision

- The court affirmed.
- Washington had jurisdiction because the juvenile court’s valid wardship order fixed the child’s domicile in Washington for custody-jurisdiction purposes.
- The foster mother’s testimony was not hearsay because it was admitted to show the child’s state of mind and the effect of a proposed custodial environment, not to prove the truth of accusations about the brother’s death.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing custody given the evidence bearing on the child’s welfare.

## Legal Principles

- A child’s domicile ordinarily follows the parent with legal custody, but a valid order making the child a temporary ward of the court terminates, for domicile purposes, the parent’s custody until further court action and fixes domicile in the state of the warding court.
- Courts in the child’s domicile may modify custody provisions of a foreign divorce decree when changed conditions affecting the child’s welfare warrant modification.
- An out-of-court statement is not hearsay when offered to show the declarant’s state of mind rather than the truth of the matter asserted.
- Non-hearsay out-of-court statements by a young child relevant to the child’s state of mind are not excluded merely because the child might be incompetent to testify, especially in custody proceedings.
- Custody determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with a presumption that the trial court gave paramount consideration to the child’s welfare.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Washington’s modification of a California custody decree after juvenile-court wardship established Washington as the child’s domicile, and it approved admission of the child’s statements through the foster mother to show the child’s fear and emotional condition relevant to custody, not to prove the underlying accusations.


Betts v. Betts, 3 Wn. App. 53, 473 P.2d 403 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970)