On June 22, 2010, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued an Administrative Interpretation clarifying the definition of “son or daughter” as it applies to an employee standing in loco parentis to allow individuals who provide day-to-day care of a child to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
The FMLA entitles an employee to 12 workweeks of leave for the birth or placement of a son or daughter, to bond with a newborn or newly placed son or daughter, or to care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition.
The definition of “son or daughter” under the FMLA includes not only a biological or adopted child, but also a “foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis.”
In its Administrative Interpretation, the DOL focuses on the term in loco parentis citing court decisions finding that the key determination in such relationships is the intention of the person allegedly in loco parentis. Current FMLA regulations define in loco parentis as including those with day-to-day responsibilities to care for and financially support a child.
Tying these two themes together, the DOL concludes that “the regulations do not require an employee who intends to assume the responsibilities of a parent establish that he or she provides both day-to-day care and financial support in order to be found to stand in loco parentis to a child.”
Following this statement, the DOL provides numerous examples of how an individual may qualify as a parent entitled to leave under the interpretation:
Where an employee provides day-to-day care for his or her unmarried partner’s child (with whom there is no legal or biological relationship) but does not financially support the child;
An employee who will share equally in the raising of a child with the child’s biological parent; and
An employee who will share equally in the raising of an adopted child with a same sex partner, but who does not have legally recognized obligations to care for the child.
The DOL notes also that neither the FMLA nor the FMLA regulations restrict the number of parents a child may have under the FMLA. Thus, for example, where a child’s biological parents divorce, and each parent remarries, the child will be the “son or daughter” of both the biological parents and the stepparents and all four adults would have equal rights to take FMLA leave to care for the child.
The DOL provides the additional guidance that where an employer has questions about whether an employee’s relationship to a child is covered under FMLA, the employer may require the employee to provide reasonable documentation or statement of the family relationship. However, a simple statement asserting that the requisite family relationship exists is all that is needed in situations such as in loco parentis where there is no biological relationship or other legal relationship.
It is important to note that while the Administrative Interpretation may not be controlling in court, it will most likely be followed by the DOL, which is responsible for enforcing the FMLA. We note, also, that that this Interpretation Letter does not address an employee’s entitlement to take military FMLA leave for a son or daughter, which is determined by separate definitions.
- Partner
Jonathan Judge heads the Private Labor and Employment Group’s Advice and Counsel Team of attorneys. He represents clients, large and small, in employment advice and counsel matters including wage and hour, leaves of absence, and ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- SB 513 Expands Employers’ Recordkeeping Requirements for Education and Training Records
- California Court Clarifies Sick Leave Pay Calculation for Outside Sales Employees
- California’s Minimum Wage to Increase to $16.90 Per Hour on January 1, 2026
- California Agency Issues Guidance on Violence Leave
- California Employers Should Review Their Cellular Phone and Driving Policies Following Recent Court of Appeal Decision
- Numerous Local Minimum Wages Poised to Increase Effective July 1, 2025
- U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services Issues Updated I-9 Form
- President Trump’s Executive Orders on DEI
- California Court of Appeal Upholds Revocable, Prospective Meal Period Waivers
- SPRING CLEANING: Have You “Cleaned Up” Your Arbitration Agreement?
Popular Categories
- (131)
- (35)
- (51)
- (33)
- (16)
- (14)
- (37)
- (9)
- (7)
- (17)
- (4)
- (15)
- (1)
- (9)
- (1)
- (3)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Mae G. Alberto
- Steve Araiza
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- William M. Betley
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Paul S. Fleck
- Grant C. Furukawa
- Lauren S. Gafa
- Priscilla Gamino
- L. Brent Garrett
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Jennifer S. Grock
- Jonathan Judge
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Mia A. Lomedico
- Jorge J. Luna
- Brian D. Martin
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Nora Pasin
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Saba Salamatian
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Ann K. Smith
- Julie F. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Glen A. Williams
Archives
2025
- November 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
2024
2023
2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
