Utah Court of Appeals
Can noncustodial parents sue for their child's injuries in Utah? Covington v. Johnson (In re H.C.) Explained
Summary
Daniel Covington, a noncustodial biological father, sued on behalf of his minor daughter H.C. against her stepfather and mother, alleging battery and negligence. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding Covington lacked standing because he was not H.C.’s guardian or guardian ad litem and had no custody or visitation rights.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Covington v. Johnson (In re H.C.), the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a noncustodial biological parent has standing to bring suit on behalf of their minor child for injuries caused by third parties. The court’s ruling provides important guidance for practitioners representing noncustodial parents in personal injury cases.
Background and Facts
Daniel Covington, the biological father of minor H.C., sued his ex-wife and her new husband on behalf of H.C., alleging battery and negligence. At the time, H.C.’s mother had exclusive legal and physical custody, and Covington had no visitation rights. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) limits standing in suits involving minors to general guardians and guardians ad litem only. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Rule 17(b) could deny a natural parent the standing granted by Utah Code section 78B-3-102(1), which provides that “a parent or guardian may bring an action for the death or injury of a minor child when the injury or death is caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.”
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, relying heavily on Moreno v. Board of Education. The court emphasized that noncustodial parents retain residual parental rights until those rights are formally terminated, including “the right to maintain an action for the wrongful death of a child.” The court found that section 78B-3-102(1) expressly grants standing to parents, not just guardians, and this statutory right cannot be circumvented by Rule 17(b).
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that statutory standing under section 78B-3-102(1) extends to all biological parents whose parental rights remain intact, regardless of custody status. Practitioners should cite this case when defending noncustodial parents’ right to pursue injury claims for their children. The ruling also reinforces that residual parental rights survive loss of custody and continue until formal termination proceedings.
Case Details
Case Name
Covington v. Johnson (In re H.C.)
Citation
2009 UT App 187
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20080626-CA
Date Decided
July 16, 2009
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A noncustodial biological parent whose parental rights have not been terminated has statutory standing under Utah Code section 78B-3-102(1) to bring suit on behalf of their minor child for injuries caused by another’s wrongful act.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of statutory interpretation
Practice Tip
When representing noncustodial parents in injury cases involving their children, cite Utah Code section 78B-3-102(1) and Moreno v. Board of Education to establish standing, emphasizing that residual parental rights remain intact until formally terminated.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.