A growing number of courts have embraced the conclusion reached by this Court today. See, e.g., Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Co., 48 P.3d 1229, 1237 (Col. 2002) ("As a practical matter, release and indemnity provisions in contracts signed by parents or guardians on behalf of their minor children go hand-in-hand: having invalidated release provisions, it would be contradictory to then effectively undercut a minor's rights to sue by allowing indemnity clauses that make such suits for all realistic purposes unlikely."); Keeney v. Mystic Valley Hunt, 2003 WL 22792318, at *3 (Conn.Super. Nov. 13, 2003) (holding that parental indemnity agreements create "precisely the type of scenario that the parental immunity doctrine is designed to prevent"); Valdimir v. Mt. Hebrew Union Camps, 172 N.E.2d 283, 284-86 (N.Y. 1961) (where public policy would render a settlement of an infant's claims unenforceable, similar public policy interests rendered parental indemnity contract unenforceable); Hawkins v. Peart, 37 P.3d 1062, 1067 (Utah 2001) ("Such an agreement creates an unacceptable conflict of interest between a parent and a minor . . ."). In a thoughtful, frequently cited opinion, a Tennessee court held that because under Tennessee law a parent cannot execute an exculpatory agreement on behalf of her incompetent child, public policy would preclude her from indemnifying a potential tortfeasor for harm to her child.