V.C. v. M.J.B. - 163 N.J. 200, 748 A.2d 539 (2000)

Rule:

Third parties who live in familial circumstances with a child and his or her legal parent may achieve, with the consent of the legal parent, a psychological parent status vis-a-vis a child. Fundamental to a finding of the existence of that status is that a parent-child bond has been created. That bond cannot be unilaterally terminated by the legal parent. When there is a conflict over custody and visitation between the legal parent and a psychological parent, the legal paradigm is that of two legal parents and the standard to be applied is the best interests of the child.

Facts:

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, her former domestic partner, seeking joint legal custody and visitation of Defendant's biological children, with whom she lived in a familial setting, and in respect of whom she claimed to have functioned as a psychological parent. At trial, expert witnesses appeared for both parties. Although they disagreed as to whether the children would suffer any long-term effects if their relationship with Plaintiff were severed, both agreed that the children enjoyed a bonded relationship with Plaintiff and that they would benefit from continued contact with her. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s applications for joint legal custody and visitation because it concluded that she failed to establish that the bonded relationship she enjoyed with the children had risen to the level of psychological parenthood. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Plaintiff’s application for joint legal custody, concluding that it was not in the best interests of the children. However, the Appellate Division reversed the denial of Plaintiff’s petition for visitation, concluding that Plaintiff had established a parent-like relationship with the children and that Plaintiff’s continued contact with them would be in their best interests. Both parties sought review of the lower court's decision.

Issue:

Did Plaintiff establish a parent-like relationship with the Defendant’s children, entitling her to visitation rights?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court found that a bonded relationship had formed between Plaintiff and Defendant's children and that Plaintiff was a psychological parent to them. The Court noted that once a third party has been determined to be a psychological parent to a child, he or she stood in parity with the legal parent, and custody and visitation issues between them were to be determined on a best interests standard. In this case, the Court found that Plaintiff had not been involved in the decision making for the children for nearly four years, and as such, the court held that to interject Plaintiff into the decisional realm at this point would be unnecessarily disruptive for everyone involved. However, the Plaintiff and the children have been visiting during nearly all of the four years since Plaintiff parted company from Defendant. Continued visitation in those circumstances should be presumed. Nothing suggested that Plaintiff should be precluded from continuing to see the children on a regular basis. Indeed, it was clear that continued regular visitation was in the children's best interests because Plaintiff was their psychological parent.