Can noncustodial parents sue for their child's injuries in Utah? Covington v. Johnson (In re H.C.) Explained

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.