Janice v. Margaret

40 Citing cases

  1. Conover v. Conover

    450 Md. 51 (Md. 2016)   Cited 89 times
    Adopting de facto parent status in Maryland in a same-sex custody dispute

    This appeal arises out of a divorce between a lesbian couple, and involves a dispute over one spouse's right of access to a child conceived by artificial insemination and born before the couple was married. Petitioner calls upon us to revisit the concept of de facto parenthood and our previous decision in Janice M. v. Margaret K. , 404 Md. 661, 948 A.2d 73 (2008). FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

  2. Conover v. Conover

    224 Md. App. 366 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    On one side is the biological mother, appellee Brittany Conover; on the other is the non-biological, non-adoptive parent, Michelle Conover. The key issue presented is whether Michelle may invoke Maryland's paternity laws to confer upon her parental standing to seek custody or visitation without interfering with the constitutional rights of the natural parent, Brittany, and without satisfying the stringent standards of Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661, 948 A.2d 73 (2008) and Koshko v. Haining, 398 Md. 404, 921 A.2d 171 (2007). The Circuit Court for Washington County denied custody and visitation and this appeal followed.

  3. In re Victoria C.

    437 Md. 567 (Md. 2014)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that sibling's request for visitation was governed by the third-party visitation rule

    We disagreed and opined that involuntary time away from a child as a result of employment could not constitute exceptional circumstances. Since McDermott, we have held in Koshko that grandparents are third parties, but most significantly, we declared that a de facto parent was a third party in Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661, 948 A.2d 73 (2008). In Janice M., Margaret K., who had been the same sex partner of Janice M., sought custody and visitation with Janice M.'s adopted daughter, Maya, with whom Janice and Margaret had lived with for five years while performing parenting functions, having “divided the responsibilities for preparing Maya's food, changing her diapers, bathing her, handling her schooling, addressing her healthcare needs, and performing most other caretaking duties.”

  4. In re Victoria C.

    No. 15 (Md. Mar. 27, 2014)

    We disagreed and opined that involuntary time away from a child as a result of employment could not constitute exceptional circumstances. Since McDermott, we have held in Koshko that grandparents are third parties, but most significantly, we declared that a de facto parent was a third party in Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661, 948 A.2d 73 (2008). In Janice M., Margaret K., who had been the same sex partner of Janice M., sought custody and visitation with Janice M.'s adopted daughter, Maya, with whom Janice and Margaret had lived with for five years while performing parenting functions, having "divided the responsibilities for preparing Maya's food, changing her diapers, bathing her, handling her schooling, addressing her healthcare needs, and performing most other caretaking duties."

  5. Kpetigo v. Kpetigo

    238 Md. App. 561 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2018)   Cited 41 times
    In Kpetigo v. Kpetigo, 238 Md.App. 561 (2018), we upheld a trial judge's decision that a step-mother, who was married to the biological father of a child, had established the necessary elements to prove a de facto parental relationship pursuant to Conover.

    Stated generally, a de facto parent is a non-related adult "who claims custody or visitation rights based upon the party's relationship, in fact, with a non-biological, non-adopted child."Janice M. v. Margaret K. , 404 Md. 661, 680–81, 948 A.2d 73 (2008), overruled byConover , 450 Md. at 66, 146 A.3d 433. Other jurisdictions have also referred to this status as a "psychological parent," an "equitable parent," a "de facto custodian," or being in loco parentis .

  6. Kpetigo v. Kpetigo

    No. 2122 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 3, 2018)

    Stated generally, a de facto parent is a non-related adult "who claims custody or visitation rights based upon the party's relationship, in fact, with a non-biological, non-adopted child."Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661, 680-81 (2008), overruled by Conover, 450 Md. at 66. Other jurisdictions have also referred to this status as a "psychological parent," an "equitable parent," a "de facto custodian," or being in loco parentis.

  7. Ross v. Cecil Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

    878 F. Supp. 2d 606 (D. Md. 2012)   Cited 29 times

    Ross contends that in Maryland “[t]he rights of an acting parent ... over and against the rights of natural parents [or those taking the place of natural parents, such as CCDSS], may be proven by showing ... exceptional circumstances that would be detrimental to ... continued custody with the natural parents.” ECF No. 54–1 ( citing Koshko v. Haining, 398 Md. 404, 921 A.2d 171 (2007), Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661, 948 A.2d 73 (2008), Aumiller v. Aumiller, 183 Md.App. 71, 959 A.2d 849 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.2008)). The cases relied on address the standard for limiting a natural or adoptive parent's liberty interest in controlling her child's interactions with third parties such as former partners and grandparents.

  8. Ross v. Cecil Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

    CIVIL NO.: WDQ-11-0181 (D. Md. Jul. 11, 2012)

    Ross contends that in Maryland "[t]he rights of an acting parent . . . over and against the rights of natural parents [or those taking the place of natural parents, such as CCDSS], may be proven by showing . . . exceptional circumstances that would be detrimental to . . . continued custody with the natural parents." ECF No. 54-1 (citing Koshko v. Haining, 398 Md. 404 (2007), Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661 (2008), Aumiller v. Aumiller, 959 A.2d 849 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008)). The cases relied on address the standard for limiting a natural or adoptive parent's liberty interest in controlling her child's interactions with third parties such as former partners and grandparents.

  9. Brown v. Brown

    No. 0440-2023 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 6, 2024)

    Maryland courts hesitated to recognize de facto parent status because it could "short-circuit[] the requirement to show unfitness or exceptional circumstances[.]" Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661, 685 (2008), overruled by Conover v. Conover, 450 Md. 51 (2016). However, in her prescient dissent in Janice M., Judge Irma Raker argued that "the de facto parent test is not inconsistent with Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)" and highlighted decisions of sister states that rejected parental unfitness as a necessary predicate for interference with a biological parent's fundamental right to raise his children.

  10. In re J.M.

    No. 2180 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jul. 25, 2017)

    To determine whether a party was entitled to de facto parent status, we adopted a four-part test first articulated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in In re Custody of H.S.H.-K., 533 N.W.2d 419 (Wis. 1995). Id. at 111. S.F. v. M.D., was left to stand by the Court of Appeals for eight years, until it was overturned by Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661, in 2008.