About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [i] (July 2016 through April 2017)

handle is hein.ali/alifm0030 and id is 1 raw text is: PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION CHAPTER 2. THE ALLOCATION OF CUSTODIAL AND DECISIONMAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHILDREN TOPIC 1. SCOPE, OBJECTIVES, DEFINITIONS, AND PARTIES § 2.03 Definitions Md.2016. Cit. in sup., subsec. (1)(c) quot. in ftn.; cit. in case quot. in ftn. (general cite). After child's biological mother filed for divorce from her same-sex partner, partner requested visitation rights with respect to child. The trial court denied partner's request, finding that partner lacked parental standing because child was conceived and born prior to mother's and partner's marriage. The court of appeals affirmed. This court reversed and remanded for a determination as to whether parent was a de facto parent of child, holding that de facto parents had standing to contest custody or visitation and were not required to show parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances before a trial court could apply a best- interests-of-the-child analysis. The court noted that Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution §§ 2.03 and 2.04 recommended expanding the definition of parenthood to include de facto parents, and included a de facto parent as one of the parties with standing to bring an action for the determination of custody, subject to the best-interests-of-the-child analysis. Conover v. Conover, 141 A.3d 31, 37, 49. § 2.04 Parties to an Action Under This Chapter Md.2016. Cit. in sup.; cit. in case quot. in ftn. (general cite). After child's biological mother filed for divorce from her same-sex partner, partner requested visitation rights with respect to child. The trial court denied partner's request, finding that partner lacked parental standing because child was conceived and born prior to mother's and partner's marriage. The court of appeals affirmed. This court reversed and remanded for a determination as to whether parent was a de facto parent of child, holding that de facto parents had standing to contest custody or visitation and were not required to show parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances before a trial court could apply a best-interests-of-the-child analysis. The court noted that Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution §§ 2.03 and 2.04 recommended expanding the definition of parenthood to include de facto parents, and included a de facto parent as one of the parties with standing to bring an action for the determination of custody, subject to the best-interests-of-the-child analysis. Conover v. Conover, 141 A.3d 31, 49. TOPIC 2. PARENTING PLAN § 2.09 Allocation of Significant Decisionmaking Responsibility A L m For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most