Utah Supreme Court
Can an incarcerated parent sue over children's religious baptism? Treff v. Hinckley Explained
Summary
Robert Treff, incarcerated for killing his wife, filed suit against LDS Church leaders and others after discovering his children had been baptized while in their aunt’s custody. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim, ruling that his alleged causes of action for violation of parental rights and alienation of affections were not recognized by law.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In 2001, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a unique case involving parental rights and religious freedom. Robert Treff was incarcerated after killing his wife on Christmas Day 1986. His two young children were placed in foster care and later with their aunt in California. Within approximately a year and a half, both children were baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Treff claimed he was misled into believing his parental rights had been terminated, only discovering in 1997 that they remained intact.
Key Legal Issues
Treff sued the LDS Church’s First Presidency and others, alleging two causes of action: (1) violation of his parental rights under Utah Code section 78-3a-103, which lists determining religious affiliation as a residual parental right, and (2) alienation of affections for preventing communication with his children. He sought declaratory relief, removal of his children’s names from church records, monetary damages, and injunctive relief.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court applied correctness review and found that the statutes Treff cited merely establish procedures for state removal or termination of parental rights, but do not provide private remedies for parental rights violations. Regarding alienation of affections, the court declined to extend this tort to parent-child relationships, noting no Utah precedent supported such expansion.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the importance of carefully matching legal theories to available remedies. Practitioners should ensure cited statutes actually provide the relief sought, not merely establish governmental procedures. The court’s refusal to expand alienation of affections demonstrates judicial reluctance to create new causes of action without legislative guidance. Additionally, the court’s treatment of Treff’s pro se status shows that while courts grant some leeway to self-represented litigants, they will not assume the burden of legal research and argument.
Case Details
Case Name
Treff v. Hinckley
Citation
2001 UT 50
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 990673
Date Decided
June 12, 2001
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A parent who has not had his parental rights formally terminated cannot state a claim for violation of parental rights based on his children’s baptism while in others’ custody, and Utah does not recognize alienation of affections claims between parents and children.
Standard of Review
Correctness for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
Practice Tip
When asserting parental rights claims, ensure the cited statutes actually provide the remedies sought rather than merely establishing procedural requirements for state action.
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.