## Facts

- Alicia Bethany and Emily Jones were in a same-sex relationship from about 2000 to 2008 and bought a home together in 2003.
- In 2004, the couple planned to have a child; because Jones had health and reproductive problems, Bethany carried the pregnancy via artificial insemination using a male friend as sperm donor.
- The child, E.B., was born in 2005 and was given Jones’s last name and Jones’s grandmother’s name as the child’s middle name.
- The parties intended to co-parent; Bethany testified she considered Jones to be the child’s parent at the time of conception.
- After birth, Jones stayed home as E.B.’s primary caregiver while Bethany worked full-time; E.B. called Bethany “mama” and Jones “mommy.”
- E.B. developed close relationships with Jones’s parents (“Grammy” and “Poppy”); E.B. had little or no relationship with Bethany’s estranged parents.
- After the couple’s breakup in 2008, they initially agreed to continue co-parenting, but conflict arose and Bethany ultimately terminated contact between Jones and E.B., citing concerns about Jones’s instability, depression, safety, and truthfulness.

## Issues

1. Whether a former same-sex partner with no biological or adoptive relationship to the child may seek visitation based on in loco parentis.
2. Whether granting visitation on an in loco parentis theory is permissible under Arkansas law and consistent with the biological parent’s constitutional rights.
3. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Jones stood in loco parentis to E.B.
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to transfer venue.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the visitation order.
- The court held that in loco parentis is a recognized status in Arkansas that can support visitation for a non-biological, non-adoptive person.
- The court concluded the evidence supported the finding that Jones stood in loco parentis, and the finding was not clearly erroneous.
- The court held that awarding visitation after finding in loco parentis status was not an abuse of discretion and did not violate the biological parent’s due-process rights.
- The court found no reversible error in the venue ruling.

## Legal Principles

- In loco parentis exists when a person assumes the obligations of a lawful parent without formal adoption; whether the status exists is a fact-intensive inquiry.
- Arkansas common law allows a person standing in loco parentis to seek visitation; statutory authorization is not required absent a statutory bar.
- A person found to be in loco parentis is not treated as a mere third party for visitation analysis; the court may apply a best-interests standard while respecting the biological parent’s rights.
- Appellate review is deferential: factual findings (including in loco parentis) are upheld unless clearly erroneous, and visitation determinations are reversed only for abuse of discretion.
- Troxel-based objections do not control where the petitioner is found to have functioned as a parent in loco parentis, rather than as a typical third-party visitor.

## Conclusion

The court upheld visitation for a former same-sex partner who had jointly planned the child’s birth and functioned as the child’s parent, ruling that Arkansas’s in loco parentis doctrine permits visitation based on the child’s best interests without unconstitutionally overriding the biological parent’s decision-making authority.


Bethany v. Jones, 378 S.W.3d 731 (Ark. 2011)