In re Parentage of L.B.
Washington Supreme Court
122 P.3d 161 (2005)
- Written by Brittany Frankel, JD
Facts
Carvin (plaintiff) and Britain (defendant) were involved in a same-sex relationship for almost 12 years. About five years after they became romantically involved, Carvin and Britain decided to have a child. A friend donated sperm, and Carvin assisted with the artificial insemination of Britain. L.B. was born as a result. During the first six years of L.B.’s life, Carvin and Britain made parenting decisions together and held themselves out as a family unit. L.B. referred to Carvin and Britain as her mothers. Eventually, Carvin and Britain ended their relationship. Britain restricted Carvin’s contact with L.B. To continue having a relationship with L.B., Carvin filed a petition to establish parentage. The family-court commissioner found that Carvin was only a psychological parent and that Carvin thus lacked standing to claim parentage under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). The trial court affirmed the commissioner’s finding, and Carvin appealed the decision. The court of appeals found that Washington law allowed for Carvin to be established as a de facto parent, which is a person who is not the legal parent of a child but may be granted custody rights due to the establishment of a parent-like relationship with the child. Britain appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bridge, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
