Logo
Call Now(480)305-8300

In Loco Parentis Visitation With a Child By a Step Parent

Posted on : October 11, 2016, By:  Christopher Hildebrand
In Loco Parentis Visitation With Child By a Step Parent

In Loco Parentis Visitation With a Child By a Step Parent

Arizona courts allow nonparents to petition for visitation rights in certain cases. The statutes were largely intended to allow grandparent visitation. How do they apply to a same-sex couple when one partner was the mother who gave birth to the child? The Court of Appeals considered this issue in Egan v. Fridlund-Horne, 211 P. 3d 1213 (2009).

Facts of the Case

Mrs. Egan and Mrs. Hochmuth were partners in a same-sex relationship for 17 years. They agreed to have a child together using a sperm donor. Mrs. Egan gave birth in 2000 and they jointly raised the child for seven years. Their relationship ended in March 2007. When they split up, they agreed to alternate weeks with the child. Soon, however, Mrs. Egan asked Mrs. Hochmuth to reduce her visitation. She reluctantly agreed.

In Loco Parentis Visitation With a Child by a Step Parent.

In Loco Parentis Visitation With a Child by a Step Parent.

The revised schedule gave her visitation from Sunday through Thursday, every other week. Mrs. Egan again reduced the visitation to Monday through Thursday every other week. Then she reduced it to Monday through Wednesday every other week. Mrs. Hochmuth filed a petition for “custody/visitation.” She claimed to stand in in loco parentis to the child given her long involvement in raising her.

She requested an order giving her more rights. She asked the court to issue an order: (1) awarding significant visitation with the child; (2) requiring the parties to confer and agree on major life issues, including education, religion, and healthcare; (3) directing the parties to create and maintain reciprocal wills granting testamentary guardianship status to the other party; and (4) providing for ninety days’ advance written notice of any intent by Mrs. Egan to relocate the child. Mrs. Egan moved to dismiss. She argued that Mrs. Hochmuth could not seek in loco parentis visitation rights unless Mrs. Egan denied her the right to visit the child. The court denied the motion to dismiss.

The court heard testimony and found that the parties were equally involved with the child’s upbringing. It also found that the child excelled in school, even after the separation. The only evidence of negative impact of the equal parenting time was Mrs. Egan’s testimony about the child’s breakdown. The lower court then granted Mrs. Hochmuth temporary visitation rights.

The parties were unable to agree on a plan. Therefore, the court adopted a visitation plan that divided the child’s time equally between them. It provided that the child would not be away from Mrs. Egan for more than five consecutive days. The Court of Appeals agreed to hear the issue.

Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
A Google User
A Google User
20:31 20 Sep 17
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
A Google User
A Google User
21:41 07 Nov 17
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Google User
Google User
14:58 04 Oct 17
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
A Google User
A Google User
16:03 22 Nov 17
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
A Google User
A Google User
22:14 28 Jun 17
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
A Google User
A Google User
18:16 18 Sep 17
Kevin Park of Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
A Google User
A Google User
19:22 23 Aug 17
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
A Google User
A Google User
17:44 23 Jun 16
I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.
Bassam Ziadeh
Bassam Ziadeh
21:20 02 Apr 18
I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.
Larry Flint
Larry Flint
21:53 27 Feb 18
Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus.Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend.Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face.I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.
Sam Franchimone
Sam Franchimone
22:09 12 Sep 13

Mr. Hochmuth Can Seek Visitation Rights

Mrs. Egan does not challenge the court’s ruling that Mrs. Hochmuth stands in loco parentis to the child. The only issue before the Court of Appeals is whether Mrs. Hochmuth has the right to equal visitation rights.

Mrs. Egan argues that Mrs. Hochmuth can only seek visitation rights if she denies her the right to visit the child. She claims that as she allowed some visitation, therefore Mrs. Hochmuth cannot seek additional visitation. However, in McGovern v. McGovern, 33 P.3d 506, 513 (2001), the court addresses in loco parentis visitation. That case involved the rights of grandparents to seek visitation. The McGovern court ruled that no Arizona law nor decision requires that a parent deny visitation altogether. This is not a precondition to seeking in loco parentis visitation.

 

Standards in Arizona for Determining In Loco Parentis Visitation

Mrs. Egan argues that the court had to give weight to her decision as to the amount of visitation Mrs. Hockmuth should get. A parent’s right to parent is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). The Arizona Supreme Court reiterated this in Granville v. Dodge, 985 P.2d 604, 608 (1999). However, the Court of Appeals noted that parents’ rights are not without limit. All states allow grandparents to petition for custody/visitation with their grandchildren under certain circumstances. A few states, including Arizona, extend similar rights to other nonparents based on the concept of in loco parentis.

To determine how that legal concept should be applied, the Court looked to Supreme Court cases. In Troxel, paternal grandparents petitioned for visitation after their son, the children’s father, died. There, the state statute allowed any person to petition for visitation if it served the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court invalidated the Washington statute as unconstitutional. It based this on several factors:

(1) the mother was a fit parent and the trial court failed to recognize the presumption that she acted in her children’s best interest;

(2) the mother did not seek to completely deny visitation, but rather, merely sought to limit it;

(3) the trial court failed to accord mother’s decision any material weight;

(4) the statute was over broad in that it placed no limits on who could petition for visitation or the circumstances under which it could be granted.

Arizona’s grandparent visitation statute does not offend constitutional due process constraints. It requires Arizona courts to give weight to a parent’s visitation decisions. It also includes procedural safeguards recognizing the parents’ superior right to the custody and care of their children. Arizona’s grandparent visitation statute only allows visitation if it is in the best interests of the child.

A court must consider all relevant factors in determining best interests. The order must be as “minimally intrusive as possible” to the child’s parents. Under Arizona case law, a trial court must apply certain basic notions in determining grandparent visitation rights.

In Loco Parentis Visitation With a Child by Step Parent.

In Loco Parentis Visitation With a Child by Step Parent.

First, it must presume that a fit parent’s decision to deny or limit visitation was made in the child’s best interests. It must also give some special weight to a fit parent’s determination of whether visitation is in the child’s best interests. It must give significant weight to a parent’s voluntary agreement to permit some visitation.

Mrs. Hockmuth contends that this is different from a grandparent visitation case. She points to Washington cases allowing a de facto parent equal parenting rights. But Arizona has no de facto marriage laws like Washington. Mrs. Hockmuth’s request for visitation is under the in loco parentis statute. Consistent with the constitutional right to parent, the legislature gives nonparents fewer rights than parents. A court can, but need not, award visitation to a nonparent.

Mrs. Hockmuth presented evidence of her substantial relationship with Mrs. Egan and the child. The Court noted, that to be relevant in determining the scope of visitation. However, it does not trump Mrs. Egan’s fundamental right to parent her child.

Child’s Best Interests

A determination about nonparent visitation must include specific consideration of the child’s best interests. Mrs. Egan argues that the superior court should have considered her ideas about best interests before awarding visitation. The Court of Appeals agreed. It concluded that the trial court had to include these safeguards in its consideration:

(1) the court should apply a rebuttable presumption that a fit parent’s decision to deny or limit visitation was made in the child’s best interests;

(2) the court must give “some special weight” to the parent’s determination of whether visitation is in the child’s best interests and give “significant weight” to the parent’s voluntary agreement to permit some visitation;

(3) the court must consider the best interests factors listed in § 25-409(C);

(4) the court should take into consideration other relevant best interests factors such as the degree to which the parent has consented to and fostered the nonparent’s relationship with the child, including any agreements the parties made as to visitation arrangements.

The Court found that the trial court did not presume that Mrs. Egan acted in the child’s best interests in determining the visitation. There is also no indication that the court applied the other factors. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the court’s temporary order granting equal visitation rights to Mrs. Hochmuth was not reasonable.

Disposition

The Court ruled that the superior court erred in awarding Mrs. Hockmuth equal visitation rights. Therefore, it vacated the court’s visitation order. It remanded the case to the superior court to evaluate Mrs. Hockmuth’s request for visitation. It should use the procedural and evidentiary safeguards discussed in the decision of this case.



What’s Hot – Blog