adoption had been the law in Utah for fifteen years. In re Williams' Estates, 10 Utah 2d 83, 348 P.2d 683 (1960). Yet nothing in the original Probate Code or its subsequent amendments either addresses or con-fliects with equitable adoption. I. THE PROBATE CODF'S DEFINITIONS OF "CHILD" AND "PARENT" DO NOT UNDERMINE THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ADOPTION 1 38 The majority seems to recognize that equitable adoption was valid as a common law doctrine before the Code was enacted. See supra ¶¶ 17, 24. In the majority's view, equitable adoption and the previous probate code could coexist because the previous probate code did not define the terms "child" or "parent." The majority holds that the Uniform Probate Code's definitions of "child" and "parent," quoted above in paragra 319-20 (Utah 1988) (<HOLDING>). {41 More specifically, several states that
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 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 uniform probate code  3911 gives probate court power to sell any property which cannot be partitioned without prejudice to the owners and which cannot conveniently be allotted to any one party recognizing that in decidingclaims arising under the probate code a court may exercise its equitable powers unless explicitly forbidden to do so holding placement of commitment statute within probate code rather than within criminal code was evidence of intent to enact civil remedy