David A., et al (2019): the Rights of De Facto Parents

Published on
November 29, 2023
Written by
Angel Murphy, Esq.
Category
Custody and Child Support

Whenever someone brings a case to court, one of the main concerns pertains to the payment of attorney fees. As most of the general public is aware, attorney fees can quickly add up, because legal professionals tend to charge hefty rates, and many cases take up a large quantity of professional time. This is perhaps especially true in family law: many family law cases involve quite a bit of research, energy, and resources to complete. A prospective litigant may wonder: if I initiate a custody suit in a Maryland court, and I’m not the biological parent, is it possible for me to be awarded attorney fees by the court? In other words, under those circumstances, does the court have the ability to compel the other party to pay attorney fees? We can locate the answer in the case of David A., et al. v. Karen S. (2019).

Case Summary of David A., et al. (2019)

In this case, both the biological parents were addicted to illicit drugs and were considered to be unfit as caregivers to their child. This was not in dispute. The child’s paternal grandparents and maternal grandmother both attempted to gain full custody of the child after the court made its determination regarding the unfit status of the biological parents. Significantly, the maternal grandmother had spent substantial time with the child, and acted as the child’s effective parent for nearly a year prior to the case. Because of the maternal grandmother’s behavior, the court determined that she was the child’s “de facto” parent, and consequently the court granted her full legal custody and primary physical custody over the paternal grandparents.

Outcome & Discussion

Not only did the maternal grandmother gain full legal custody and primary physical custody, she also requested the court for attorney fees to be paid by the other party. Ultimately, the court granted this request, and the paternal grandparents were ordered to pay $57,000 in attorney fees. This determination represents a significant development in Maryland family law because it shows that non-biological parents can be awarded these fees. Prior to this case, this question remained unanswered, as many contended that the award of such fees depended on the biological status of the parents. Now, we know that “de facto” parents are eligible for an award of attorney fees, provided of course that the court officially makes the de facto status determination. As long as the court makes this finding, the de facto parent will have “equal footing” with the biological parents in his or her ability to collect attorney fees. Given how substantial these fees can be, this is a highly important development.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you would like to learn more, or if you have a new query, don’t hesitate to reach out to one of the leading family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8825.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Family Law|Attorney Fees|Custody Suit|De Facto Parent|Legal Custody|Physical Custody|David A., et al. v. Karen S. (2019)|Unfit Parents|Maryland Family Law|Court Determination|Maternal Grandmother|Legal Development

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 22, 2025

Allred v. Allred (2019) & More Details on Division of Retirement Benefits

In Allred v. Allred (2019), the parties agreed to divide retirement benefits via a marital settlement agreement, including an “investment experience” clause. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s interpretation, finding that the investment experience ended on the date of the divorce judgment, as clearly stated in the agreement. This case highlights the importance of contract clarity and deference to plain language in divorce settlements.

April 18, 2025

Fulgium v. Fulgium (2019) & Calculating Military Disposable Benefits Pay

Military divorces often involve the complex division of retirement benefits under the USFSPA and federal law. In Fulgium v. Fulgium (2019), the appellate court found that the trial court erred in calculating the wife's share of military retirement pay due to mathematical inaccuracies and a misapplication of the NDAA 2017. The case was remanded for recalculation in compliance with federal standards and limitations.

April 11, 2025

Basics on How to Record a Real Estate Deed in Maryland

Transferring property in Maryland, whether by adding a co-owner or transferring full ownership, is a complex process requiring accurate preparation of a new deed. Key steps include preparing the deed, notarization, filing a lien certificate, and paying transfer and recording fees. Consulting an expert is highly recommended to avoid costly mistakes.

April 15, 2025

K.B. v. D.B. (2020) & "Unconscionable Disparities" in Alimony Awards

Indefinite alimony is awarded under a stricter standard than rehabilitative alimony and is reserved for cases of unconscionable disparity or other serious factors. In K.B. v. D.B. (2020), the appellate court overturned the trial court’s denial of indefinite alimony, emphasizing the massive income gap between the spouses. The ruling clarified that premarital earnings and marital duration must be weighed appropriately in alimony determinations.