.webp)
.png)
In the past, we’ve discussed the concept of “third party” custody, or nonparental custody, to some degree. Third party custody is something which shows up relatively infrequently, but it is something which still occurs and something which our readers should be aware of. Ordinarily, when someone who isn’t a biological or adoptive parent attempts to assert formal parental rights over a child, that person must demonstrate specific things to the court. For instance, the person attempting to assert formal parental rights as a nonparent must typically show “exceptional circumstances” and that the current parent or parents are too “unfit” to remain in their parental role. The cases in Maryland law which deal with nonparental custody are essentially clarifications of the contours of these terms.
In the case of Augustin v. Duncan (2026), the issue regarding nonparental custody was clarified when a novel scenario turned up.
Let’s examine this case in detail.
Factual Background
In this case, a highly unusual situation emerged after both parents were tragically killed in an accident. After this tragedy, the child was then transferred, on a temporary basis, to a set of nonparents. Although these nonparents held temporary custody, the permanent or long-term custody of the child was somewhat uncertain, which led to the child’s aunt to seek full custody. Even though the aunt was a biological relative, she still was classified as a third party nonparent, and so the nonparents who already held temporary custody argued that she had to meet the standard hurdles to attain formal custody rights. In other words, the nonparents contended that the aunt had to demonstrate that they were categorically unfit in order to succeed.
The aunt lost at the trial court level, as the court concurred with the nonparents and held that the aunt failed to clearly overcome the evidentiary hurdles in front of her. The case was then taken before the appellate division.
Ruling & Analysis
On appeal, the appellate court sided with the aunt, holding that the standard presumptions didn’t apply because both of the biological parents had tragically passed away. Ordinarily, when at least one biological or adoptive parent remains, the standard legal presumptions still apply; here, the court held that the aunt didn’t have the burden of showing “exceptional circumstances” or that the nonparents were unfit. Instead, the court used an altogether dissimilar approach, as those presumptions no longer informed its analysis. The court could make its decision solely based on a “best interests of the child” standard alone, wholly detached from any considerations relating to exceptional circumstances or parental unfitness.
The case was sent back for additional proceedings consistent with the appellate division’s determinations. Again, as mentioned, this case really sets an important precedent as it holds that the normal presumptions are only operative when at least one biological or adoptive parent holds custody; cases such as these, rare though they may be, are no longer bound by these same principles.
Going forward, if you have any sort of custody dispute, you need to procure counsel who is familiar with these developments. If you don’t obtain qualified counsel, you stand a chance of losing your case based on faulty research, procedural irregularities, or flawed reasoning.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If readers want to know more about nonparental custody issues in Maryland, third party parent status, resolving custody disputes, developing a workable co-parenting schedule, or any other related family law issue, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
