K.A.F. v. D.L.M.
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
96 A.3d 975, 437 N.J. Super. 123 (2014)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
K.A.F. (plaintiff) and F.D., two romantically involved women, sought a sperm donation to have a child. In 2002 K.A.F. gave birth to a baby boy, Arthur. In 2004 K.A.F. and F.D. ended their romantic relationship but shared parenting responsibilities. K.A.F. then began dating D.M. (defendant). In 2005 F.D. legally adopted Arthur. In 2006 K.A.F. and D.M. entered a legal domestic partnership. In 2011 K.A.F. and D.M. dissolved their domestic partnership. After the relationship ended, K.A.F. allowed D.M. to have frequent overnight visits with Arthur. However, in 2012, K.A.F. stopped allowing visitation. D.M. petitioned family court for joint custody and visitation on the ground that she had shared parenting responsibilities for Arthur. K.A.F. and F.D. opposed the petition. F.D. argued that she had never consented to D.M. parenting Arthur. The family judge dismissed D.M.’s petition on the ground that F.D. had not consented to D.M. developing a psychological-parent relationship with Arthur and, therefore, D.M. could not petition for custody and visitation. The family judge noted that requiring both legal parents to consent to a third party developing a psychological-parent relationship would guard against a child having multiple legal parents. D.M. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.