In re: Victoria C. (2013) & the Issue of Sibling Visitation

One of the more fascinating issues in Maryland family law is the issue of third party visitation rights with children. In this context, “third party” simply refers to anyone other than a biological (or, for that matter, non-biological) parent. In some cases, third parties request formal visitation rights with children; these requests may be made for any number of reasons. Most commonly, we see requests from grandparents who wish to play an active role in the lives of their grandchildren. Sometimes, for whatever reason, a biological parent may attempt to prevent contact between a child and a grandparent. When that happens, grandparents sometimes try to acquire formal rights to see their grandchild, and the track record in this area points to very mixed results. In some cases, third parties have been successful in obtaining formal visitation rights, but the road to that type of success is far from easy.

On the whole, the issue of third party visitation rights is very complicated, and so we can only attempt to scratch the surface with a single post. Today, we will shed a bit of light on this complex matter by examining the case of In re: Victoria C. (2013).

Summary of the Case

This case had a very unusual fact pattern. The third party who sought formal visitation rights was the older half-sister of two younger half-siblings. This half-sister had originally been determined a CINA (“child in need of assistance”) while she was a minor. Her mother had committed suicide, and she contended that the father had been abusive toward her mother. The father had remarried and had two children with his new wife. The half-sister became interested in acquiring formal third-party visitation rights because her father prevented her from having regular contact with her half-siblings.

The trial court initially ruled that this half-sister was entitled to formal visitation rights because denying those rights would have caused her significant negative effects. The court concluded that the negative effects on the half-sister outweighed the objections of the father. Then, this decision was overturned on appeal, because the appellate court determined that the half-sister failed to show “exceptional circumstances” which were needed to overcome the father’s objections. Subsequently, the half-sister appealed this appellate decision and took the case to the highest court in Maryland.

Outcome & Discussion

The Supreme Court of Maryland ultimately affirmed the ruling of the Court of Special Appeals. This meant that the ruling of the trial court was firmly overturned. The supreme court reasoned that, because the half-sister was not a parent, she had the burden of showing “exceptional circumstances” because there was no evidence to support the notion that the father was unfit as a parent. The trial court rested its opinion on the fact that the half-sister would have suffered considerable emotional trauma if she lost access to her half-siblings, but the appellate court (and the supreme court) rejected this basis for the opinion. The analysis should never have been based on any possible trauma caused to the half-sister, but on whether exceptional circumstances exist to override the presumption in favor of the parent’s judgment.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you would like additional information on this complex case, or another topic, reach out to one of the leading attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8963.