(dissenting)—The issue in this case is whether Michael Walsh is guilty of burglary and criminal trespass as found by the trial court. The resolution of that issue depends on whether Michael had a right or privilege to enter his mother's home at the time of the alleged offenses. If he did, his entries could not be unlawful, and he would not be guilty of the charged offenses.
In State v. Steinbach, 101 Wn.2d 460, 679 P.2d 369 (1984), the decision clearly was based on the fact that Terri Steinbach was not absolutely prohibited by her mother from entering the family home, nor was any such prohibition set forth in the alternative placement order under which she was living at the time. For that reason, the court said her entry into her mother's home was privileged and, therefore, not unlawful.
*498Judge Pekelis' opinion in the case sub judice acknowledges, as it must, that Michael Walsh was clearly prohibited from entering his mother's home. She told him so and enforced her decision by changing the locks on the doors. The trial court entered a finding that Michael was prohibited from entering his mother's home. Thus, the missing ingredient in the Steinbach case is present here. Michael's convictions for burglary and criminal trespass can be affirmed based upon the reasoning of State v. Steinbach, supra.
I disagree with Judge Pekelis' opinion because I believe that it engages in impermissible judicial legislation. There is no inherent or irreconcilable conflict between a parent's duty to support minor children and, at the same time, extending a right or privilege to a parent to exclude a minor child from the family home. While Judge Pekelis' opinion provides a solution which is solicitous of the juvenile defendant, it fails to recognize that the problems faced by parents with unmanageable children can become extremely serious.
The facts of this case demonstrate why Lucille Walsh took the extraordinary step of expelling her 16-year-old son Michael from her home. Her job required frequent out-of-town travel. She described one incident in early October 1987 in which 50 to 150 people attended a keg party at her house. The result was that police were called, and furniture was seriously damaged. Michael would also leave the house unlocked so that his friends could enter. On October 23, the rear door was pried open with a crowbar. On one occasion, Michael had threatened her, and she was in a position where she could not control him. She took the action as a disciplinary measure and to protect her home from further damage.
Because a parent has a duty to support a minor child, Judge Pekelis' opinion holds that a parent cannot unilaterally terminate a minor's right of entry into the home of his parents. Judge Pekelis' opinion holds at pages 495-96 "that *499a formal legal proceeding is required before a child's privilege to enter the parental home can be terminated." Since there is no irreconcilable conflict between the duty of support and withdrawal of the privilege to enter the family home, this case does not present a need for judicial reconciliation of two conflicting statutes. A minor can be barred from entry into the family home without the duty of support being breached. Judge Pekelis' opinion would make a drastic change in the law in that it would take away from parents the right to bar unmanageable minors from the family home and place that power exclusively in a court. While this judicial distrust of parents may ultimately prove to be justified, I suggest that such a drastic change in the law is properly a legislative function. In the legislative process, research can be done on the advantages and disadvantages of such a rule, knowledgeable people can testify in legislative hearings held by the appropriate committees, and the wisdom of the rule can be thoroughly debated before it becomes law. One of the aspects of the issue that would undoubtedly interest the Legislature would be the extremely difficult position of a parent subjected to the tyranny of an unmanageable teenager during the time that the "formal legal proceeding" was being scheduled and held.
It is unnecessary for this court to make such basic changes in the law in order to resolve the issues in this case. Whether Mrs. Walsh breached her duty to support her son is an entirely separate issue to be dealt with through appropriate process in the appropriate forum. It is not necessary to deny her the right to protect herself from an unmanageable son simply because she has a statutory duty to support him. These are separate issues to be dealt with separately, and there is no basis for a judicial assumption that they must be dealt with in the same proceeding.
On February 22, 1990, Division Two of the Court of Appeals filed an opinion in the case of State v. Howe, 57 Wn. App. 63, 786 P.2d 824 (1990). Dealing with the identical issue, the opinion in Howe holds that the duties owed *500by a parent toward a minor child and the rights of the child derived therefrom "continue until such time as the child is emancipated or legal custody is placed in someone other than the parent." Howe, at 69.
Then in apparent recognition of the problems to be faced by parents with unmanageable children, the court acknowledged that parents have a right of possession in their home superior to that of the child. The court went on to say that parents are not required to submit to the tyranny of a minor child and that when faced with such circumstances, "the parent may very well have the right to limit or even deny the child's entry into the home." Howe, at 70. The court stated, however, that even under such circumstances, if the child should gain entry to the home, the entry would not be an unlawful entry, and he could not be prosecuted for burglary or criminal trespass. Thus, the Howe opinion acknowledges the difficult position of the parent and acknowledges the parent's right to bar the child from the home, but at the same time, advises the parent that if the child breaks into the home anyway, the child cannot be prosecuted on any theory requiring an unlawful entry.
The somewhat ambiguous resolution of the problem in the Howe case and the rather drastic changes in the law that Judge Pekelis' opinion would adopt in the case sub judice makes it all the more evident that these cases raise basic societal questions which should be resolved through the legislative process.
It is my view that under existing law and the reasoning underlying the opinion in State v. Steinbach, supra, Michael Walsh is guilty of burglary and criminal trespass, and his convictions for those offenses should be affirmed.
Review granted at 115 Wn.2d 1002 (1990).