State of Utah, in the interest of C.M.

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of C.M.,
a person under eighteen years of age.
______________________________

I.F.,
Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

K.M.,
Respondent and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20000112-CA

F I L E D
April 27, 2000
  2000 UT App 115 -----

Second District Juvenile, Farmington Department
The Honorable Diane W. Wilkins

Attorneys:
Steven C. Russell and G. Brent Smith, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
D. Karl Mangum, Salt Lake City, Appellee Pro Se
Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem

-----

Before Judges Bench, Billings, and Davis.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals an order of the juvenile court dismissing her petition filed pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-305 (Supp. 1999). We affirm.

An order terminating parental rights divests the natural parents of all legal rights, powers, immunities, duties, and obligations with respect to the child. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-413 (Supp. 1999). Further, "birth parents of an adopted child are, from the time the final decree of adoption is entered, released from all parental duties toward and all responsibilities for the adopted child, and have no further rights with regard to the child." Id. § 78-30-11 (1996). Thus, by virtue of the decree of adoption terminating I.F.'s parental rights entered in 1997, I.F. has no rights, duties, or powers with respect to C.M. This total divestiture makes it plain that, with respect to her status as C.M.'s natural mother, she is not an "interested party" who may file a petition under section 78-3a-305.

Nor is I.F. an interested party as a "de facto" parent or a person standing "in loco parentis" to C.M. A de facto parent is one who, on a day-to-day basis, assumes the role of parent, seeking to fulfill both the child's physical and psychological needs. See In re Herenia C., 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). A person acting in loco parentis is one who has assumed the status and obligations of a parent without formal adoption. See In re P.C., 842 P.2d 364 (Okla. Ct. App. 1992). Appellant, by telephoning C.M. on a regular basis and visiting him on occasion at K.M.'s sole discretion, has not assumed the status and obligations of C.M.'s parent nor fulfilled C.M.'s physical and psychological needs. K.M. is C.M.'s legal parent, custodian and provider. Accordingly, I.F. is not an "interested party" as contemplated by section 78-3a-305, and the district court properly dismissed her petition based on her lack of standing.
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge