Opinion ID: 2582638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: In Loco Parentis Liability

Text: ¶ 22 Aba Sheikh argues that it was error for the trial court to dismiss, upon motion for summary judgment, his in loco parentis claim against DSHS. The in loco parentis relationship is a common law doctrine that is not well defined in our case law. In State ex rel. Gilroy v. Superior Court, 37 Wash.2d 926, 933, 226 P.2d 882 (1951), this court gave some meaning to the doctrine through citation to outside authority, stating as follows: One who takes a child into his home and treats it as a member of his own family, educating and supporting it as if it were his own child, is said to stand to the child in loco parentis .... Where one stands in loco parentis to another, the rights and liabilities arising out of that relation are, as the words imply, substantially the same as between parent and child. (quoting 39 AM. JUR. 697 § 61). Aba Sheikh reasons that Anderson's and Pierre's status as dependents, requiring DSHS to provide basic services (housing, physical care and medical care), and DSHS's authority to assume custody under RCW 74.13.031(6), create the in loco parentis relationship. [3] ¶ 23 In the foster care setting it is the foster parent, Daniels in this case, who stands in the parental role, not DSHS. RCW 74.13.330 defines the responsibilities of foster parents as follows: Foster parents are responsible for the protection, care, supervision, and nurturing of the child in placement. Congruently, RCW 74.15.020(1)(g) defines [f]oster-family home as an agency which regularly provides care on a twenty-four hour basis to one or more children. In contrast to Daniels, DSHS was limited to coordinating the foster care services and, in the case of Pierre, monitoring the home on an ongoing basis. It was Daniels who took the children into her home and treated them as members of her own family, educating and supporting them. See Gilroy, 37 Wash.2d at 934, 226 P.2d 882. DSHS had no analogous relationship. Therefore, the trial court was correct when it concluded as a matter of law that DSHS did not stand in loco parentis as to Anderson and Daniels.