exercised our equitable power to hold that, even though the claimant was not a "child" or "issue" under the statute, justice required awarding her the same inheritance she would have received if she had been adopted. See In re Williams' Estates, 10 Utah 2d 83, 348 P.2d 683, 684 (1960). Nothing in the Uniform Probate Code definitions changes our ability to do that. Equitable adoption has always operated in parallel with the probate code, providing a non-statutory, equitable right to inherit as if the claimant were the child of the decedent. See id. {40 The majority further holds that equitable adoption .Dist.Ct.App.1984) (estopping the first wife of decedent from asserting her inheritance rights as against the decedent's second wife); In re Estate of Peter C., 488 A2d 468, 470 (Me.1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Estate of Foster, 102 N.M. 707, 699
holding that a claim of quantum meruit was appropriate in a probate case because under section 103 principles of law and equity supplement the provisions of the utah uniform probate code unless displaced by particular provisions of the code holding that the common law rule that a guardian is in a fiduciary relationship to his ward was not abrogated by the adoption of the uniform probate code even though the code does not shoulder guardians with fiduciary responsibilities holding that a sellers superior knowledge of a product does not justify imposition of a fiduciary relationship in the absence of a conscious assumption of fiduciary duties holding that a statutorilyimposed fiduciary obligation created an express trust fiduciary relationship for purposes of  523a4 holding that the statutes abrogated the common law