Simpson v. Simpson

35 Citing cases

  1. Hickenbottom v. Hickenbottom

    239 Neb. 579 (Neb. 1991)   Cited 35 times
    In Hickenbottom, we recognized that the stepparent in Gribble was functionally a parent within the terms of the Utah statute and had “the same rights” thereunder.

    In remanding the cause for a determination of the ex-stepfather's relationship with his former stepchildren, the Spells court indicated that a relevant factor in the determination would be whether the ex-stepfather had stood in loco parentis to his stepchildren. See, also, Simpson v. Simpson, 586 S.W.2d 33 (Ky. 1979) (adopting the in loco parentis approach in holding that visitation with a surrogate parent may be in the child's best interests). Utah used the same approach in Gribble v. Gribble, 583 P.2d 64 (Utah 1978).

  2. Fitch v. Burns

    782 S.W.2d 618 (Ky. 1990)   Cited 30 times
    Noting that the clear and convincing evidence standard "requires the party with the burden of proof to produce evidence substantially more persuasive than a preponderance of evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt."

    The Burns' counsel conceded that the phrase, "or found," would not be coextensive with being physically present if the children had been brought to Rowan County without permission. Their attorney acknowledged that she participated in what would be the controlling case in such circumstances, Simpson v. Simpson, Ky., 586 S.W.2d 33 (1979), wherein we stated: "A nonparent cannot legitimately invoke the Court's jurisdiction on the issue of custody by seizing a child from a parent prior to filing a petition for custody."

  3. K. C. O. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs.

    518 S.W.3d 778 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 6 times

    " Looper v. McManus , Okla.App., 581 P.2d 487, 488 (1978).Simpson v. Simpson , 586 S.W.2d 33 (Ky. 1979) (abrogated by statute, as noted inB.F. v. T.D. , 194 S.W.3d 310 (Ky. 2006) ).According to the DNA petition filed by the paternal grandparents, their three-year-old grandson was living with his parents in a home rife with domestic violence and regular intravenous methamphetamine use.

  4. Krieg v. Glassburn

    419 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 28 times
    Concluding that the consent of noncustodial grandparents, even those with visitation rights, is not required for adoption

    Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, Sec. 407, Commissioner's Note (1971)." Simpson v. Simpson, (Ky. 1979) 586 S.W.2d 33, 35 (construing Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.320 (Supp. 1980)). The same result, that the statute does not necessarily exclude visitation rights of third parties, was reached in Collins v. Gilbreath (4th Dist. 1980) Ind. App., 403 N.E.2d 921.

  5. Staples v. Commonwealth

    454 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2014)

    A.2d 200, 205 (D.C.2005) (“[T]he status of in loco parentis arises only when one is willing to assume all the obligations and to receive all the benefits associated with one standing as a natural parent to a child.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A finding that one stood in loco parentis in this sense could, at one time at least, entitle one, for example, to a parent's tort immunity, Rutkowski, 143 N.Y.S.2d at 1; could give one an insurable interest in the child for life-insurance purposes, First Colony Life Insurance Company v. Sanford, 555 F.3d 177 (5th Cir.2009); could affect one's entitlement to bankruptcy allowances, In re Ramsay, 440 B.R. 85 (M.D.Penn.2010); could entitle the child to favorable inheritance tax treatment, Conner v. Parsley, 192 Ky. 827, 234 S.W. 972 (1921); could render one liable for the child's support and education, Dixon v. Hosick, 101 Ky. 231, 41 S.W. 282 (1897); and could give one standing to seek custody of or visitation with the child, Simpson v. Simpson, 586 S.W.2d 33 (Ky.1979) (abrogated by statute, as noted in B.F. v. T.D., 194 S.W.3d 310 (2006)). In loco parentis status could also render one liable for having failed to protect the child from injury, not only by a third person, People v. Stephens, 3 A.D.3d 57, 769 N.Y.S.2d 249 (2003) (upholding second-degree murder conviction of man who failed to seek medical aid for girlfriend's nine-year-old sister who was fatally injured while living with the couple), but also by the child's parent.

  6. Staples v. Commonwealth

    454 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2014)

    A finding that one stood in loco parentis in this sense could, at one time at least, entitle one, for example, to a parent's tort immunity, Rutkowski, 143 N.Y.S.2d at 1 ; could give one an insurable interest in the child for life-insurance purposes, First Colony Life Insurance Company v. Sanford, 555 F.3d 177 (5th Cir.2009) ; could affect one's entitlement to bankruptcy allowances, In re Ramsay, 440 B.R. 85 (M.D.Penn.2010) ; could entitle the child to favorable inheritance tax treatment, Conner v. Parsley, 192 Ky. 827, 234 S.W. 972 (1921) ; could render one liable for the child's support and education, Dixon v. Hosick, 101 Ky. 231, 41 S.W. 282 (1897) ; and could give one standing to seek custody of or visitation with the child, Simpson v. Simpson, 586 S.W.2d 33 (Ky.1979) (abrogated by statute, as noted in B.F. v. T.D., 194 S.W.3d 310 (2006) ).In loco parentis status could also render one liable for having failed to protect the child from injury, not only by a third person, People v. Stephens, 3 A.D.3d 57, 769 N.Y.S.2d 249 (2003) (upholding second-degree murder conviction of man who failed to seek medical aid for girlfriend's nine-year-old sister who was fatally injured while living with the couple), but also by the child's parent.

  7. B.F. v. T.D

    194 S.W.3d 310 (Ky. 2006)   Cited 16 times

    KRS 403.260(5) (repealed 1980).Simpson v. Simpson, 586 S.W.2d 33 (Ky. 1979).

  8. Moore v. Asente

    110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2003)   Cited 824 times
    Finding the Kentucky trial court properly exercised jurisdiction, but reversing the trial court's holding as to the merits of the underlying custody action and remanding the matter to the trial court to determine whether custody of Justin should be vested in Moore and Dorning or appellants

    " citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) and Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972)); Sherfey v. Sherfey, Ky.App., 74 S.W.3d 777, 781-82 (2002); Greathouse v. Shreve, Ky., 891 S.W.2d 387 (1995). Cf. Simpson v. Simpson, Ky. 586 S.W.2d 33, 35 n. 1 (1979) ("A nonparent can not legitimately invoke the court's jurisdiction on the issue of custody by seizing a child from a parent prior to filing a petition for custody."). On the facts of this case, we conclude that the trial court clearly erred when it ruled that the Asentes lacked standing.

  9. V.C. v. M.J.B

    163 N.J. 200 (N.J. 2000)   Cited 185 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that former domestic partner who was child's “psychological parent” could be granted visitation rights

    Carter v. Brodrick, 644 P.2d 850, 855 (Alaska 1982) (acknowledging that step-parents who stand inlocoparentis have ability to petition for visitation); Custodyof C.C.R.S., 892 P.2d 246, 247 (Colo. 1995) (holding that best interest test applies to determine custody between biological and psychological parents); Simpson v. Simpson, 586 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Ky. 1979) (recognizing that nonparent who stands inlocoparentis may petition for custody); E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 711 N.E.2d 886, 893-94 (Mass. 1999) (holding that trial court had jurisdiction to award visitation between child and defacto parent); In Matter ofJ.W.F., 799 P.2d 710, 714 (Utah 1990) ("[T]he fact that a person is not a child's natural or legal parent does not mean that he or she must stand as a total stranger to the child where custody is concerned.

  10. Quirk v. Swanson

    368 N.W.2d 557 (N.D. 1985)   Cited 14 times
    In Quirk, we dismissed a cross-appeal filed after the expiration of the 14-day period prescribed by Rule 4(a), N.D.R.App.P. The appellee contended that he was entitled to a three-day extension pursuant to Rule 26(c), N.D.R. App.P.

    It is appropriate to extend the application of that same rationale to the award of visitation to a nonparent. The awarding of visitation to a non-parent is not uncommon.See Wills v. Wills, 399 So.2d 1130 (Fla.App. 1981); Collins v. Gilbreath, 403 N.E.2d 921 (Ind. App. 1980); Simpson v. Simpson, 586 S.W.2d 33 (Ky. 1979). It is clear from the above-cited cases that the paramount concern in awarding visitation to a non-parent is the best interests of the child. See Annot., 1 A.L. R.4th 1270 (1980).