No Visitation for De Facto Parent
Janice and Margaret were in a committed same-sex relationship for 18 years. When they decided to end it, they were unable to come to an agreement about “their” daughter, Maya.
Both had been equally involved in her care as moms. But their status as parents was far from equal in the eyes of the law. Maya had been adopted from a country which does not permit same-sex couples to adopt but does allow single women to adopt. Therefore only Janice had legally adopted Maya.
After the break-up of the couple, Margaret wanted to maintain her relationship with Maya; but Janice resisted. After a trial, the court found that Margaret was entitled to visitation as a parent in fact, if not in law, and that it would be in the best interest of the child to permit visitation.
Court of Appeals
But the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed. Under Maryland law, said the court, there is no such thing as a “de facto parent”. Margaret was just a third party seeking visitation against a legal parent who did not want it. A legal parent possesses the constitutional rights to govern the care, custody and control of his or her child. A putative de facto parent who seeks visitation rights over the objection of a legal parent is a third party, and, as is required of other third parties w ho seek visitation rights, must demonstrate exceptional circumstances as a prerequisite to a court’s consideration of the best interests of the child. The court would only grant visitation to Margaret if Janice was unfit, or if sufficient “exceptional circumstances” existed that would justify awarding visitation.
If you think that all of this could be avoided simply by having both partners adopt the child, even that is not clear. Whether same-sex couples may adopt in Maryland remains unsettled. Once again we are struck by the difference in the real world and the legal world. This decision seems to be very technically and legally reasoned. But it lacks the feelings of real world experience of children and alternative families. The opinion cites the law correctly but what about the child’s best interest in losing access to one of her moms?
The Dissent
“One thing is clear: the Maryland legislature is silent when it comes to the question of visitation with children when a non-traditional family is involved,” said the dissenting judge.
He points to Wisconsin as having a test he finds appropriate:
- the biological or adoptive parent must have consented to, and fostered, the petitioner’s formation of a parent-like relationship;
- the petitioner and the child must have lived together in the same household;
- the petitioner must have assumed the obligations of parenthood by taking significant responsibility for the child’s care, education, and development, including contributing to the child’s support, without expectation of financial compensation (a petitioner’s contribution to a child’s support need not be monetary); and
- the petitioner must have been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship parental in nature.
The dissent said, “A party who has demonstrated that he or she is a child’s de facto parent should be entitled to visitation rights if such a result is in the best interest of the child.”
Janice M. v. Margaret K., No. 122, Sept. Term, 2006 (Maryland Court of Appeals, May 19, 2008)
Tags: adoptive parent, biological parent, Divorce, Maryland Court of Appeals, visitation
Related posts:
June 24th, 2008 at 10:05 am
De facto parent status is not always good for the child especially when their made to be a pawn in a battle between two adult or one vindictive partner.
Maryland has second parent adoption yet Margaret wasn’t interested?
Come on people…theorhetically a child could have ten de facto parents. How is that a good thing?
There are so many scenarios that don’t work not to mention one’s Constitutional right to parent their biological or legally adopted child as they see fit as long as there is not harm to the child.
One battling ex-partner is not going to foster the bond between biological parent and child because it’s all a battle of parental rights. That is completely wrong.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:07 am
If Margaret had tried and failed to adopt Maya I would feel differently. That would show that Margaret and Janice wanted and planned to parent together. I live in VA where same-sex couples have no rights yet my expartner and I obviously planned to parent together – baby’s name and both of ours were legally hyphenated and his first name is the same as my ex-partner’s dad. Our son calls her momma and me, mommie. Before the reversal of de facto parent any same-sex room mate could claim a partnership and planned parenthood. How does that work for the child? There is nothing to show Janice wanted Margaret as an equal parent to begin with. This is as bad as the Terry Shiavo.
August 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I would agree with Susan. The adoptive parent was legally responsible for the upbringing of the child and the other parent had no legal responsibilities (even if she shared experiences with the child). The ex-partner never attempted to adopt the child, which would indicate to me that she wanted to have a relationship with the child, but did not want the legal and financial responsibilities that go along with it – that is a friend, not a parent. A “de facto” friend perhaps?
May 24th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Did Margaret, ultimately, win visitation and or partial custody to Maya? My case will be heard on Tuesday, May 25th.
Thank you,
Valerie W. Ross
240-246-7475
May 24th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
She did not. We would all be interested in hearing about your case.