"in loco parentis" bill placed on later agenda for comment

After nearly an hour of discussion, lawmakers took no action Tuesday on a bill that its sponsor says is necessary to prevent judicial abuse of an ages-old legal doctrine.

Though they appeared to support the intent of the legislation, members of the House Judiciary Committee questioned whether HB148, sponsored by Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, is the best way to achieve its goal.

The meeting adjourned without a vote or public comment on the bill. The majority of those waiting to speak indicated after the hearing that they opposed the legislation.

Committee chairman Rep. James Ferrin, R-Orem, said it would be placed on a later agenda and time set aside for public comment.

HB148 would forbid courts from invoking "in loco parentis" — a Latin phrase meaning "in the place of a parent" — to award parent-time, visitation, custody, legal guardianship, child support or adoption to a non-biological adult against the wishes of a biological or adoptive parent.

Christensen said he was prompted by recent cases in which the doctrine has been, in his opinion, misused. Particularly, he pointed Tuesday to a case in which a state court judge relied on the doctrine to grant a Utah woman visitation with her former lesbian partner's 4-year-old biological daughter.

"The problem has been that 'in loco parentis' has just been floating out there, kind of a blank check," he said, adding that his bill would uphold "our traditional definitions of marriage and family life."

But lawmakers questioned whether HB148 might unwittingly affect many other situations.

"Don't you worry that by defining 'in loco parentis' that you're removing protections for children?" asked Rep. Scott Wyatt, R-Logan. "It troubles me that we're taking a 300- or 400-year-old legal doctrine and defining a whole lot of circumstances out of it."

Stewart Ralphs, director of the Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake, said HB148 would do just that.

"What this bill would do would is limit a long-standing legal principle and, with sweeping limitation, substitute the discretion of the court for the unfettered will of a parent," Ralphs said.

Giving all decisionmaking power to a biological parent is not always wise, he said, especially in cases where the "good parent" may become incapacitated or die. In those cases, a non-biological adult may be the most suitable person to step into the parental role.

"It might be a gay parent, a lesbian partner, it might be an unmarried boyfriend or girlfriend who's raised this child for years," Ralphs said. "To take that away from the court to be able to award those kind of rights . . . I think is bad public policy."

---

E-mail: awelling@desnews.com