Opinion ID: 2630325
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Court Properly Rejected Killpack's Proposed Jury Instruction Regarding a Parent's Reasonable Child Care Choices

Text: ¶ 26 Killpack's first proposed jury instruction is based on Utah Code section 62A-4a-201, a portion of the Utah Human Services Code. [14] This section provides that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions about how to raise their children. Based on the wording of the statute, Killpack proposed the following instruction: Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody and management of their children, as protected by the 14th Amendment. Child abuse does not include injury that results from a parent's reasonable choices made in providing the care, custody and management of their children as viewed from the parent's standpoint. ¶ 27 The trial court rejected this instruction, noting that the section of the Utah Human Services Code that Killpack cited is clearly a statement of general policy that has to do with situations where the State comes in and removes children from the home of their parents.... That's not the issue in this case. ¶ 28 While we could decline to address this issue based on Killpack's failure to properly brief it, [15] we nevertheless reach the merits of the issue and conclude that the trial court correctly refused this instruction because nothing in the Utah Human Services Code can be construed as a defense against child abuse. ¶ 29 Killpack attempts to justify this instruction by citing to Utah Code section 62A-4a-201(1)(a), which requires adequate procedures be provided to parents if the state moves to challenge or interfere with parental rights. As Killpack argues, this section recognizes that parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children. But Killpack is incorrect in suggesting that this section grants parents immunity from child abuse charges based on their parenting choices. ¶ 30 In the child abuse statute, the legislature has enumerated specific defenses to child abuse. Thus, a parent does not commit child abuse by (1) treating a child's medical condition by spiritual means in lieu of medical treatment, (2) treating a child's medical condition reasonably and with the best interest of the child in mind, and (3) imposing reasonable discipline or physical restraint on a child for specifically enumerated purposes such as self-defense. [16] The child abuse statute recognizes no defense against a charge of child abuse for, as Killpack proposed, injury that results from a parent's reasonable choices made in providing the care, custody and management of their children. And even if we were to recognize this defense, Killpack would still have been required to prove that her treatment of Cassandra was reasonable. In finding her guilty of child abuse homicide, the jury found that Killpack had behaved recklessly towards Cassandra and, therefore, necessarily concluded that Killpack's actions were not reasonable. ¶ 31 Because we find nothing to suggest that a fundamental interest in the care, custody, and management of a child gives parents the authority to commit acts that would otherwise be child abuse, we find that the trial court properly rejected Killpack's first proposed jury instruction.