.webp)
.png)
The concept of “de facto” parenthood is a concept which we haven’t discussed at great length in the past, but it is significant enough such that it warrants coverage at certain times. In essence, a de facto parent is a third party, someone unrelated biologically to a child and also not an adoptive parent, who may, in certain circumstances, attain legal custody over a child because of an established relationship. In other words, it is a person who gains standing to seek formal custody rights in Maryland due to specific conduct with respect to a child. Needless to say, the bar to attain this standing (and the ability to seek formal custody rights) is very high, because the law in Maryland naturally presumes that biological parents (or adoptive parents, for that matter) should maintain custody over children. There are certain cases, however, in which a de facto parent may see it necessary or prudent to seek custody, and so the whole concept of de facto parenthood can play a beneficial societal role in these contexts.
The case of B.O. v. S.O. (2021) is a relatively recent, pandemic-era case in which an aunt attempted to claim de facto parent status and obtain formal custody rights over her nephew. Let’s examine this case in detail to get a better sense of how this concept works in Maryland law.
Facts of the Case
As mentioned, the third party in this case was an aunt of a male child. The nephew was born in 2017. The natural parents, S.O. and L.R., both had various issues pertaining to their fitness as parental figures. The mother (“S.O.”), for instance, had a history of drug abuse, and the father was ultimately convicted of multiple murders and was incarcerated at the time of these proceedings (on de facto parenthood).
Again, the bar to succeed on a claim for de facto parenthood is very high. Under the Conover v. Conover (2016) decision, the court established four prongs which must all be satisfied in order for a party claiming de facto parent status to succeed. The first prong is that the natural or adoptive parents of the child must actively and affirmatively consent to the de facto parent’s establishment of a parental-like relationship with the child. At trial, this prong became the disputed issue in the case, as the mother argued that both natural parents hadn’t given affirmative consent to the aunt’s parental relationship. The aunt tried to raise other issues, such as the mother’s overall fitness as a parent (which might render her unfit altogether), but those issues were struck down.
Whenever a third party attempts to make a claim for de facto parenthood, that party bears the burden of proving all four factors laid out in Conover. In this situation, the trial court determined that the aunt failed to satisfactorily prove that both the mother and father had given the initial consent to establish a parental-like bond with the child.
Ruling & Discussion
Upon review, the appellate division affirmed the ruling of the trial court, holding that the aunt failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the first prong had been proven. Again, the aunt also raised additional issues, but those were also rejected. One of the other issues brought by the aunt was the fact that the trial court didn’t even perform any “best interests of the child” analysis in its determination. The appellate division noted that, because the aunt failed the first prong of de facto parenthood, and because the mother wasn’t ruled as unfit to hold parenthood status, the trial court wasn’t obligated to conduct that type of analysis. Hence, because all issues raised by the aunt were rejected, the trial court decision was affirmed.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
Readers who want to know more about de facto parenthood, grandparent or third party custody rights in Maryland, custody disputes in general, or any other related family law matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
