There are three aspects to our review of a child custody dispute. First, we review the circuit court's findings of fact for clear error. Md. Rule 8-131(a); Burak v. Burak, 455 Md. 564, 616 (2017). Second, we determine whether the circuit court erred as to matters of law by reviewing its legal conclusions without deference.

As such, we have "held that a third party seeking custody or visitation must first show unfitness of the natural parents or that extraordinary circumstances exist before a trial court could apply the best interests of the child standard." Id. at 61, 146 A.3d at 438 (citations omitted); see also Burak v. Burak, 455 Md. 564, 624, 168 A.3d 883, 918 (2017) (The Court held "that for a third-party to have standing to intervene in a custody action, he or she must plead sufficient facts that, if true, would support a finding of either parental unfitness or the existence of exceptional circumstances and demonstrates that the best interests of the child would be served in the custody of the third-party."). In McDermott, 385 Md. at 325, 869 A.2d at 754, we held:

On review, we grant the trial court broad discretion "because only [the trial court] sees the witnesses and the parties, hears the testimony and has the opportunity to speak with the child." Burak v. Burak , 455 Md. 564, 617, 168 A.3d 883 (2017) (quoting In re Yve S. , 373 Md. 551, 585-86, 819 A.2d 1030 (2003) ). Comparatively speaking, a trial court "is in a far better position ... to weigh the evidence" and determine custody, than an appellate court with only a "cold record before it." Id.

He argued that the motion to intervene was not timely because Ms. Hylton is a third party vis-à-vis the children and lacked the right to intervene in a custody action. He argued that "[a] third party's ability to seek permissive intervention in a custody case i[s] premised upon there being an existent child custody action pending before the Court. Burak v. Burak, 455 Md. 564 (2017)," and that because the custody case had been closed in 2019, Ms. Hylton lacked the ability to intervene and reopen the case to seek a modification of custody. Mr. Cropper alleged further that Ms. Hylton had not alleged unfitness or exceptional circumstances that could justify her intervention by way of reopening the proceeding. Along with his motion

" Burak v. Burak, 455 Md. 564, 617 (2017) (quoting In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 585-86 (2003)). Comparatively speaking, a trial court "is in a far better position . . . to weigh the evidence" and determine custody, than an appellate court with only a "cold record before it."

The complaint does not identify what those exceptional circumstances are or allege that Ms. B. is unfit to care for the Children. In opposing intervention, Ms. B. argued that she is a de facto parent under Conover, therefore "stands in the shoes of a natural parent," and, as a result, that the motion to intervene was insufficient because it failed to make a prima facie showing that she was either unfit or that exceptional circumstances exist as required by Burak v. Burak, 455 Md. 564 (2017). The Circuit Court's Ruling

Id. at 625. This deferential standard is appropriate "'because only [the trial court] sees the witnesses and the parties, hears the testimony, and has the opportunity to speak with the child[.]'" Burak v. Burak, 455 Md. 564, 617 (2017) (quoting In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 586 (2003)). An abuse of discretion occurs "where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the [trial] court," when the court acts "without reference to any guiding rules or principles[,]" or where "the ruling under consideration is clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court[.]"

Finally, when the appellate court views the ultimate conclusion of the hearing court founded upon sound legal principles and based upon factual findings that are not clearly erroneous, the hearing court's decision should be disturbed only if there has been a clear abuse of discretion.Burak v. Burak, 455 Md. 564, 616-17 (2017) (cleaned up). Therefore, we will review first, the court's finding of facts; second, its legal determinations; and finally, its ultimate conclusion.

in third-party custody disputes, a third-party can only prevail in obtaining custody of a child if he or she overcomes the presumption that the child's best interest is served by being placed in the custody of the parent, by showing that the parents are either unfit or there are exceptional circumstances that would make custody with the parent detrimental to the best interests of the child.Burak v. Burak, 455 Md. 564, 624 (2017). One exception to this rule involves a de facto parent, where, among other things, "the biological or adoptive parent consented to, and fostered, the petitioner's formation and establishment of a parent-like relationship with the child."

Id. (citing Burak v. Burak, 455 Md. 564, 616-17 (2017)). "To the extent that a custody decision involves a legal question, . . . the appellate court must determine whether the trial court's conclusions are legally correct, and, if not, whether the error was harmless."