From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
In re Custody of B.M.H.
Supreme Court of Washington
315 P.3d 470 (Wash. 2013)
During a two-year relationship, Michael Holt (plaintiff) and Laurie Holt (defendant) had a child, C.H. Michael and Laurie separated three years later without marrying. Subsequently, Laurie became engaged to another man, who was killed in a work-related accident when she was three-months pregnant with his child, B.M.H. Michael supported Laurie before, during, and after B.M.H.’s birth. Michael and Laurie were briefly married, but soon divorced. A parenting plan gave primary physical custody of C.H. to Laurie and visitation rights to Michael every other weekend. The plan did not include provisions for B.M.H., but Michael and Laurie agreed that B.M.H. would follow the same custody and visitation plan as C.H. Michael was highly active in B.M.H.’s life and held himself out as B.M.H.’s father in all respects. Laurie even changed B.M.H.’s last name to Holt. Later, Laurie planned to move 50 miles away. Michael filed a petition for non-parental custody of B.M.H., requesting that the court declare him to be B.M.H.’s de facto parent. The trial court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent the interests of B.M.H. After a hearing, the court held that Michael had made a prima facie case for de facto parentage. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Washington decided In re Parentage of M.F., 228 P.3d 1270 (Wash. 2010), holding that a former stepfather could not be his stepchild’s de facto parent. The trial court conducted several hearings to determine the impact of M.F. on the de facto action. The trial court dismissed Michael’s de facto parentage claim but, based on the GAL’s testimony and report, found good cause to proceed on Michael’s non-parental custody petition. Laurie appealed. The court of appeals reinstated the de facto parentage petition and affirmed the trial court’s order for a show-cause hearing on the non-parental custody petition. The Supreme Court of Washington granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Gonzalez, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Madsen, C.J.)
Dissent (Wiggins, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.