Brief Fact Summary. Parents argued that they did not owe the State support for time their child spent in it’s custody because he had been emancipated under the common law.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Judicial emancipation refers to the nonstatutory termination of certain rights and obligations of the parent-child relationship during the child’s minority.
Issue. Did the juvenile court erroneously conclude that the doctrine of emancipation is not part of the law in Utah?
Held. On remand, the trial court should articulate the factors relevant to showing emancipation, determine if the parents established these factors, and decide if the application of the doctrine would conflict with any Utah law.
Judicial emancipation refers to the nonstatutory termination of certain rights and obligations of the parent-child relationship during the child’s minority. The parent is generally held responsible for the child’s financial support, health, education, morality, and instilling respect for people and authority. The parent is vested with custody and control of the child, including disciplinary authority. The parent is also entitled to the child’s services, and his or her earnings. When a child is adjudicated a fully emancipated minor, these rights and responsibilities are extinguished and the child is legally treated as an adult.
As the precedent relied upon demonstrates, the doctrine of emancipation continues to be an accepted part of the common law in this country. On remand, the trial court should articulate the factors relevant to showing emancipation, determine if the parents established these factors, and decide if the application of the doctrine would conflict with any Utah law.
Discussion. Although the issue of this case is emancipation, the case provides a good analysis of the duties and obligations of the parent-child relationship.