In Re Parentage of LB

Washington Supreme Court
122 P.3d 161 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Washington common law recognizes the status of a 'de facto parent,' which grants a non-biological, non-adoptive individual standing to petition for the rights and responsibilities of legal parentage if they meet a four-part test.

Facts:

In 1989, Page Britain and Sue Ellen ('Mian') Carvin began a long-term, same-sex romantic relationship and started living together.
In 1994, the couple jointly decided to have a child, and Carvin personally inseminated Britain with sperm from a known male friend.
On May 10, 1995, Britain gave birth to a girl, L.B., with Carvin present and assisting in the birth. They gave L.B. family names from both sides and listed Carvin as a 'mother' in the baby book.
For the first six years of L.B.'s life, Britain, Carvin, and L.B. lived together as a family unit, with both women sharing parenting responsibilities and holding themselves out to the public as a family.
During this period, L.B. referred to Carvin as 'mama' and Britain as 'mommy,' and both women were named as 'parents' on L.B.'s school records.
In 2001, when L.B. was six years old, Britain and Carvin ended their relationship.
After initially sharing custody and parenting responsibilities, Britain began to limit and, in the spring of 2002, unilaterally terminated all contact between Carvin and L.B.

Procedural Posture:

Sue Ellen Carvin filed a petition for establishment of parentage in King County Superior Court, the court of first instance, against Page Britain.
The family court commissioner dismissed Carvin's petition for lack of standing.
The superior court judge, on revision, affirmed the commissioner's dismissal.
Carvin, as appellant, appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, holding that Washington common law recognizes a claim for de facto parentage and remanded the case.
Britain, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Washington, the state's highest court, which granted the petition.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Washington common law recognize a 'de facto parent' status, thereby granting a non-biological, non-adoptive parent standing to petition for the rights and responsibilities of parentage over the objection of a fit legal parent?

Opinions:

Majority - Bridge, J.

Yes, Washington common law recognizes the status of de facto parents, granting them standing to petition for the rights and responsibilities of legal parentage. Although the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) does not provide a remedy for individuals like Carvin, the legislature did not intend to preempt the court's historical equity powers to protect the best interests of children in evolving family structures. Washington courts have consistently adapted the common law to fill statutory gaps in family law, guided by the paramount consideration of the child's welfare. By creating a family unit with Carvin, Britain consented to and fostered a parent-like relationship, which the state has an interest in protecting for the child's benefit. Recognizing de facto parents does not violate a legal parent's fundamental rights under Troxel v. Granville because the doctrine applies only when the legal parent has created the parent-child relationship in the first place; it resolves a dispute between two parents within a family unit, not an intrusion by a third-party stranger. A de facto parent stands in legal parity with a legal parent, and disputes between them are to be resolved based on the best interests of the child.

Dissenting - J.M. Johnson, J.

No, Washington common law should not recognize a de facto parent status, as doing so unconstitutionally infringes on a fit biological parent's fundamental right to raise their child and improperly usurps the legislature's role. The UPA unambiguously states it 'governs every determination of parentage in this state,' and its detailed provisions do not include any mention of 'de facto' or 'psychological' parents. By creating this new category of parent, the majority engages in judicial legislation, violating the separation of powers. This holding directly contravenes the principles of Troxel v. Granville, which require courts to presume that a fit parent acts in their child's best interests. The majority's attempt to 'eradicate the parent/nonparent dichotomy' is itself the constitutional violation, as it infringes on the established rights of a fit, biological parent by elevating a nonparent to equal status without a showing of harm or unfitness.

Analysis:

This landmark decision formally establishes the common law doctrine of 'de facto parentage' in Washington, creating a significant new pathway to legal parentage outside of biology or adoption. The ruling primarily impacts non-traditional families, particularly those formed by same-sex couples, by providing a legal mechanism to protect established parental relationships that lack statutory recognition. By placing de facto parents in 'legal parity' with legal parents, the decision shifts the framework for custody disputes from a parent vs. non-parent constitutional analysis (which heavily favors the legal parent under Troxel) to a parent vs. parent dispute governed by the 'best interests of the child' standard. This precedent prioritizes the child's need for stability and continuity in their established family relationships over a strictly biological or statutory definition of a parent.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In Re Parentage of LB (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"