## Facts

- Jeffrey King Beeston, Jr. was born in 1988 to Toni Rae Guard and Jeffrey King Beeston, Sr., who were not married.
- A 1990 paternity order established Beeston’s paternity, awarded Guard custody, and required Beeston to pay child support.
- Beeston did not pay all ordered support and was more than $6,000 in arrears at the time of the child’s death.
- In 1992, the child was struck and killed by a pickup truck driven by John Jackson.
- Guard sued John and Cindy Jackson for wrongful death under RCW 4.24.010, which permitted a parent to sue for a minor child’s death.
- RCW 4.24.010 conditioned an unwed father’s ability to maintain or join the action on established paternity and regular contribution to the child’s support, while imposing no comparable condition on the mother.
- Beeston intervened to join as a plaintiff; the trial court dismissed him for failing the “regularly contributed” requirement.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the support condition unconstitutional under Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment; review was granted.

## Issues

1. Whether RCW 4.24.010’s requirement that an unwed father (but not an unwed mother) must have “regularly contributed” to the child’s support to maintain or join a wrongful-death action violates Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment.
2. If unconstitutional, whether the proper remedy is to sever the support-condition language or to invalidate parental standing for unwed parents more broadly.

## Decision

- The court held the “regularly contributed” support condition for unwed fathers in RCW 4.24.010 violates Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment because it imposes a sex-based legal disability on fathers that does not apply to mothers.
- Applying strict scrutiny under the state ERA, the court concluded the sex classification was not necessary to achieve the asserted governmental interests.
- As a remedy, the court severed the unconstitutional support-condition language and left the remainder of RCW 4.24.010 intact.
- The court affirmed the Court of Appeals and allowed Beeston to participate as a plaintiff; the case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment, a statute that treats similarly situated persons differently on the basis of sex is presumptively invalid and subject to strict scrutiny.
- Conditioning an unwed father’s wrongful-death standing on regular financial support, while granting an unwed mother standing without a similar condition, is a facial sex-based classification.
- Legitimate state objectives related to parental responsibility and prevention of unjust recovery must be pursued through means that do not impose sex-based categorical bars when gender-neutral alternatives are available.
- When a statutory provision is unconstitutional, courts may sever the offending language if doing so preserves the primary legislative purpose and allows the remainder to operate.

## Conclusion

Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment prohibits RCW 4.24.010 from denying unwed fathers equal standing to sue for the wrongful death of their minor child based on a support-history condition not imposed on unwed mothers; the unconstitutional condition was severed, and the father was permitted to join the action.


Guard v. Jackson, 940 P.2d 642 (Wash. 1997)