at 513, and we certainly do not find it helpful to the decision at hand. Nor are we persuaded by the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson v. Family Services Division, 554 P.2d 227 (Utah 1976). In Wilson, the Utah court held that a grandmother who had nothing more than a biological relationship with her grandchild was nonetheless entitled to a hearing on her adoption petition. Id. at 230-31; see also State v. Wulffenstein, 571 P.2d 1319, 1321-22 (Ut.1977) (similar). Although it is not clear whether the Utah Court based its decision on the federal or state constitution, we think its conclusion flowed from a sense that a grandparent’s wish to adopt her grandchild was an aspiration worthy of protection by the courts. But cf. Browder v. Harmeyer, 453 N.E.2d 301, 308-09 (Ind.App.1983) (<HOLDING>). Although we do not dispute that the
holding that grandparent has no protected liberty interest in the visitation of a child of whom she once had custody recognizing that a parents liberty interest in the custody of a child is subject to due process protection holding that grandmother who had intermittent custody of her grandchild had no protected liberty interest in the continued custody of the child holding that juvenile court that determined child was not dependent had no jurisdiction to thereafter determine custody of child holding that grandmother in loco parentis of her three grandchildren had protected liberty interest in their future care and custody