Can parents face criminal liability for imposing restrictive diets on disabled adult children? State v. Covington Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed whether sufficient evidence supported a conviction for aggravated abuse of a disabled adult in State v. Covington, where a father imposed a restrictive diet on his autistic adult son for over a decade, leading to severe malnutrition and life-threatening medical complications.

Background and Facts

Travis Covington and his wife placed their autistic son on a highly restrictive diet developed through internet research, claiming it addressed allergic reactions to dairy and processed foods. For ten years, they maintained this diet despite family members repeatedly expressing concern that the victim was too thin and needed more food. Covington even installed a lock on the victim’s bedroom door to prevent him from accessing food when hungry. In January 2014, the 22-year-old victim collapsed and was hospitalized, weighing only 80 pounds. Medical staff instructed Covington to increase the victim’s food and fluid intake, but he continued the restrictive diet. By February, when family members took the victim to urgent care, he weighed just 55 pounds and was near death from severe malnutrition and dehydration.

Key Legal Issues

The court analyzed whether sufficient evidence supported conviction under Utah’s aggravated abuse statute, which criminalizes intentionally or knowingly causing or permitting injury to a disabled adult’s health under circumstances likely to produce death or serious injury. Covington also challenged the joinder of his trial with his wife’s, claiming prejudice from evidence of her misconduct.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying the highly deferential sufficiency of evidence standard, the court found ample evidence that Covington knowingly caused the victim’s injuries. The victim lost 31% of his body weight in four weeks after the hospital visit, developed refeeding syndrome, and faced life-threatening organ failure. Medical testimony established that without hospitalization, the victim would have died from either continued starvation or dangerous metabolic disturbances from refeeding. The court rejected Covington’s alternative theory that gastrointestinal issues caused the malnutrition, noting that competing hypotheses do not render evidence insufficient. Regarding joinder, the court found no prejudice because the evidence of Covington’s direct involvement in endangering the victim’s health was overwhelming.

Practice Implications

This case demonstrates that when challenging sufficiency of evidence involving multiple conviction theories, practitioners must address each alternative path to conviction presented in the jury instructions. The court’s analysis shows that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient when it establishes a clear causal relationship between defendant’s conduct and the victim’s harm, even when alternative explanations exist.