v.C. v. M.J.B.

725 A.2d 13 (1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and D were women who maintained a lesbian relationship lasting almost four years. D saw a fertility doctor and wanted to have a baby by artificial insemination. P learned of this effort, and eventually, D got pregnant. During D's pregnancy both P and D prepared for the birth as they moved to a larger apartment as it was discovered that D was going to have twins. They also prepared wills, powers of attorney, and named each other as the beneficiary for their respective life insurance policies and opened joint checking accounts for their household expenses. The parties also decided that P would be called Meema by the children. P was very involved in all aspects of preparing for birth from Lamaze classes, to daycare, to vacation time after the birth and to being present during the birth. P was listed as the other mother on the pediatrician and daycare registration forms. In 1995, they jointly purchased a house and were married in a commitment ceremony. The children were present at the ceremony. Savings accounts were opened for the children, and there was talk about adoption. The parties met with an attorney for that purpose and D gave the attorney a two-thousand-dollar retainer. Two months later, D ended her relationship with P, and by the winter, P had moved out of the home but spent every other weekend with the children. During this time, P contributed money towards the children’s' expenses. D even left the children with P for two weeks while away on business. D then stopped accepting money from P for the children. P is living with a new partner and so is D. During trial, P asserted that D and she had jointly decided to have the children and that they were co-parents and that P had helped D select the sperm donor and that P was a loving parent of the children. Experts were used and both experts came to the same conclusion that the children looked upon P as a parent and that the children would be affected by the loss of P. It was also expressed that eventually the children might be caught in the middle of the poor relations between P and D. The trial judge denied P's application for custody in that P failed to establish that the relationship with the children had risen to loco parentis; the present case lacks the somewhat clear parental relationship between P and the children that has been present and shown in other cases where a claim of psychological parent was successfully argued. P was also denied visitation because an in loco parentis relationship with a stepchild ends when the relationship is terminated. This appeal resulted.