Opinion ID: 1717847
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Johnny as beneficiary

Text: One of the categories of beneficiaries of a wrongful death claim under § 16-62-102(d) is, persons to whom the deceased stood in loco parentis. Annie's minor son Johnny Thacker was living with her and Carroll Standridge at the time of Carroll's death. We agree with Sharon Standridge's contention that the record before us is insufficient to sustain the probate court's conclusion that Carroll stood in loco parentis to Johnny. There are no disputed facts with respect to the relationship between Carroll and Johnny. The probate court recited no factual conclusions on the issue but merely stated that Carroll stood in loco parentis to Johnny. If that statement was meant to be a factual conclusion, we find it was clearly erroneous. Ark.R.Civ.P. 52(a). More to the point, however, our holding is that the court erred not in finding facts but in characterizing the relationship as one in loco parentis on the basis of the facts it could reasonably have determined from the evidence. While we will not overturn the probate judge's factual determinations unless they are clearly erroneous, we are free in a de novo review to reach a different result required by the law. Winn v. Chateau Cantrell Apartment Co., 304 Ark. 146, 801 S.W.2d 261 (1990); Ferguson v. Green, 266 Ark. 556, 587 S.W.2d 18 (1979). The evidence on the relationship consisted of the following testimony by Annie: Q: Would you please describe for the benefit of the court the relative situation that existed between your husband, the decedent, Mr. Carroll Wayne Standridge, and your son, his stepson, what was their relationship? A: They was very close. He usually went to work with him, rode in the truck with him. We went hunting, fishing and swimming. Just about every day. Q: He was with the child seven days a week? A: Well, yeah. Q: Who furnished the support for this child from the time you and Mr. Standridge got married until the time of his death? A: Wayne and I. Q: The two of you? A: Yes. Q: Did you receive any support from any other sources? A: No. Q: Now there has been some questions asked about the child's father, Mr. Thacker. Has Mr. Thacker ever acknoledged to be the father of this child? A: He has never said he was the father. Q: Has he denied consistently being the father of this child? A: Yes, he did. [At this point counsel and the court discussed an objection to this testimony. There was no ruling, but upon resumption of the questioning, the issue of Mr. Thacker's parenthood was not pursued.] Q: Decree was he took one child, you took the other? A: That's right. Q: Which child did he take? A: Teresa, the daughter. Q: He did not choose to take the boy? A: That's right. Q: Has he paid any support whatsoever to you or to the boy since the decree was entered? A: No. He bought one pair of pants, two shirts and a pair of shoes in the whole time. That's it? That's it. The balance of the child support came from you and Mr. Standridge? A: Yes. Elsewhere in the record, Annie testified that Mr. Thacker had a steady visitation relationship with Johnny and explained that the reason he paid no support for Johnny was because in the decree of divorce between her and Mr. Thacker he agreed to support the daughter, a victim of a serious disease requiring significant medical expenditures, and she, in turn, agreed to support Johnny. Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) defines in loco parentis as in place of a parent; instead of a parent; charged factitiously with a parent's rights, duties, and responsibilities. In Moon Distributors v. White, 245 Ark. 627, 434 S.W.2d 56 (1968), we permitted a wrongful death award to a decedent's step daughter to whom the decedent stood in loco parentis. We noted that the step daughter in question lived in the home with her step mother as mother and daughter, citing Dodd v. United States, 76 F.Supp. 991 (W.D.Ark.1948), and Miller v. United States, 123 F.2d 715 (8th Cir. 1942) (reversed on other grounds), 317 U.S. 192, 63 S.Ct. 187, 87 L.Ed. 179 (1942). In obiter dictum the Dodd case opinion mentioned that the question is one of the intent of the parties. That was the holding of the court of appeals in the Miller case. Nothing in the evidence of record indicates that Carroll Standridge had formed the intent to assume the duties and benefits of becoming Johnny's father. We cannot hold that the fact that Johnny lived with his mother and Carroll for a little over 15 months was enough to establish such intent. We hold that Johnny Thacker is not entitled to beneficiary status in the wrongful death settlement.