Opinion ID: 2639394
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Randalls' Parental Immunity Argument Is Inadequately Briefed

Text: ¶ 45 Second, the Randalls make a cursory argument that summary judgment is appropriate because their quasi-parental relationship with foster children entitles them to rely on the doctrine of parental immunity. We have not yet recognized the doctrine of parental immunity in Utah. See Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Call, 712 P.2d 231, 235 & n. 1 (Utah 1985). We did note, over twenty years ago, that [t]here is a clear majority trend toward limiting or abolishing this common law rule. Elkington v. Foust, 618 P.2d 37, 40 (Utah 1980) (quotation and citation omitted). ¶ 46 In support of their argument that we should recognize the doctrine of parental immunity and that such immunity should apply to foster parents, the Randalls merely cite a few cases and provide very little analysis. A brief is inadequate when it merely contains bald citation[s] to authority [without] development of that authority and reasoned analysis based on that authority. State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 305 (Utah 1998). As we have repeatedly noted, we are not a depository in which [a party] may dump the burden of argument and research. Id. (quotation and citation omitted). We therefore decline to address the Randalls' parental immunity argument because it has not been adequately briefed.