Bethany v. Jones
Arkansas Supreme Court
378 S.W.3d 731 (2011)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Emily Jones (plaintiff) and Alicia Bethany (defendant) had been in a same-sex relationship for four years when they decided to start a family. A friend of Jones’s donated sperm to artificially inseminate Bethany. The couple named the child using Jones’s last name and her grandmother’s name as a middle name. For over three years, Jones took care of the child as the stay-at-home parent, and the child called her “mommy.” The child considered Jones’s parents her grandparents and spent holidays with Jones’s family, as Bethany was estranged from her family. When the couple’s romantic relationship ended, they agreed to continue co-parenting. But a dispute arose when Bethany disagreed with Jones keeping the child for 24 hours against Bethany’s wishes. After starting a new relationship with another woman, Bethany decided that contact with Jones was no longer in the child’s best interest, claiming the child was not safe because Jones was allegedly unstable, untruthful, and suffered from depression. When Bethany stopped allowing Jones to see the child, Jones sued for visitation rights. The trial court found that Jones stood in loco parentis, meaning she was effectively the child’s parent, and granted visitation as in the child’s best interest. Bethany appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Corbin, J.)
Dissent (Baker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.