Opinion ID: 716752
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Status of a Surrogate Parent May Be Temporary.

Text: 42 Floyd contends that the district court erred in concluding that his status as a stepparent terminated when he voluntarily relinquished custody of Michael to the state shortly after Sharon's death. Floyd asserts that he exercised all the care and the custodial indicia of parenthood identified by the district court until the death of Michael's mother. 43 A person acting in loco parentis is one who acts in the place of a parent. Webster's Third New International Dictionary on the English Language at 1165 (4th ed. 1976). A person who acts in loco parentis voluntarily performs all of the duties a parent normally provides to his or her child. See Leyerly v. United States, 162 F.2d 79, 85 (10th Cir.1947) (a person acting in loco parentis is charged fictitiously with a parent's rights, duties and responsibilities); Griego v. Hogan, 71 N.M. 280, 377 P.2d 953, 955-56 (1963) (a person acting in loco parentis undertakes the care and control of another in the absence of such supervision by the latter's natural parents and in the absence of formal legal approval); Spells v. Spells, 250 Pa.Super. 168, 378 A.2d 879, 881-82 (1977) (a person acting in loco parentis put[s] himself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relationship without going through the formalities of adoption). Parental status based on in loco parentis status is thus, by its very nature, a temporary status. Black's Law Dictionary at 787 (6th ed. 1990) (citing Griego, 377 P.2d at 955). It is created when a person undertakes the care of a child. It ends when a person voluntarily ceases to fulfill this responsibility. Because in loco parentis status is temporary and voluntary, to apply the parent exception to a person who kidnapped a child, we must consider whether such a person continued to fulfill the responsibilities of a parent at the time of the kidnapping. Accord Miller, 123 F.2d at 717 (determining parental status at the time of the kidnapping). These duties include bestowing upon the child love, affection, support, maintenance, instruction, discipline, and guidance. 44 Floyd appears to argue that, because he acted as Michael's male parent in the place of his biological father from the date of the child's birth until his custody was voluntarily relinquished to the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, he is exempt from prosecution under section 1201. This argument confuses the distinction between a biological parent and a surrogate parent. 45 A man or woman who begets a child remains his or her biological parent forever. A surrogate parent who has not adopted the child may terminate his or her parental relationship to the child by freely relinquishing custody to the state or to another person. Once the responsibilities of surrogate parenthood are abandoned, the interim status of parenthood ends. 3 46 Here, Floyd voluntarily relinquished custody of Michael to the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. After that, he ceased to act in place of Michael's biological parents. That responsibility was assumed by the state and Michael's foster parents. The district court did not err in determining that Floyd was not exempt from prosecution for kidnapping Michael because he was not his surrogate parent on the date of the kidnapping. 47 Floyd also contends that because he paid child support as ordered by the state trial court, and because he exercised his right to have Michael brought to the prison to visit him, he thus continued to serve as Michael's parent after he relinquished custody of Michael to the state. This argument is unpersuasive. The record shows that at the time Floyd paid the court-ordered child support, and insisted that Michael be brought to the prison, he had falsely represented to the state trial court that he was Michael's biological father. Floyd apparently perpetrated this fraud in order to regain custody of Michael upon Floyd's release from prison. This fraudulent conduct does not demonstrate that Floyd continued to perform the duties of a surrogate parent after he relinquished custody of the child to the state. It shows, instead, that he was attempting to deceive the court into awarding him custody of Michael solely because he falsely claimed to be the child's biological father. 48 By surrendering the child to the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Floyd demonstrated his recognition that as a fugitive from justice, he was not in a position to fulfill all the responsibilities owed to a child by someone acting in the place of a biological parent. Floyd's refusal to return Michael to Oklahoma unless state and federal authorities agreed not to file any criminal charges against him, eloquently confirms the fact that he has treated Michael as a helpless pawn, instead of as a child in need of the protection and love of responsible surrogate parents. The district court did not err in holding that Floyd was not exempt from prosecution for kidnapping Michael.