# Babb v. Matlock

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · February 3, 2000 · 340 Ark. 263

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756516

## Case

- **Full name:** Tiny Standoak BABB, Gregory Franks, Shilena Easter, Michael Easter, Felisha Easter, Frederick Easter, and Daryl Standoak v. Leanna MATLOCK and Curtis Standoak
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** February 3, 2000
- **Citations:** 340 Ark. 263; 9 S.W.3d 508; 2000 Ark. LEXIS 39
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Arnold
- **Judges:** Donald L. Corbin
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756516

## Opinion text

WH. “Dub” Arnold, Chief Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority in holding that the relationship of in loco parentis does not continue past the age of majority for purposes of claiming as a beneficiary to a wrongful-death suit. Appellants Tiny Standoak Babb and Gregory Franks were raised by their grandmother, Allean Standoak, after their parents died. “Raise” is defined in the dictionary as: “to give (children) a parent’s fostering care : bring up : NURTURE, REAR.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1877 (1986).
Appellees argue that the relationship of in loco parentis terminated at the time each of the children reached their majority. The wrongful-death statute sets forth those who are considered as beneficiaries. Section 16-62-102(d) provides:
The beneficiaries of the action created in this section are the surviving spouse, children, father and mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased person, persons standing in loco parentis to the deceased person, and persons to whom the deceased stood in loco parentis.
(Emphasis added.)
This Court has not specifically addressed this issue until this case. The majority now holds that the relationship ends when the child for whom the deceased stood in loco parentis reaches the age of majority but not when the natural child reaches the age of majority. The statute makes no distinction as to children, whether natural or those for whom the deceased has stood in loco parentis, regarding whether they are beneficiaries even after reaching the age of majority. Therefore, I fail to see why the majority has made such a distinction. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
Thornton, J., joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756516. Public record. Not legal advice.