V.C. v. M.J.B.
2000 N.J. LEXIS 359, 748 A.2d 539, 163 N.J. 200 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third party may be deemed a 'psychological parent' with standing to seek custody and visitation if the legal parent consented to and fostered the formation of a parent-like relationship, and a bonded, parental relationship was formed. Once psychological parent status is established, disputes are resolved using the best interests of the child standard, placing the psychological parent in parity with the legal parent.
Facts:
- V.C. and M.J.B., a lesbian couple, began a romantic relationship in July 1993.
- M.J.B. had already started artificial insemination procedures to become pregnant, a plan she had for years, but V.C. became involved in the process, and the couple moved in together before M.J.B. became pregnant with twins.
- V.C. was present at the twins' birth in September 1994, and the couple raised the children together in a shared home, holding a commitment ceremony and blending their finances.
- The children were taught to call M.J.B. 'Mommy' and V.C. 'Meema.' M.J.B. publicly and privately referred to V.C. as a mother and listed V.C. as the 'other mother' on the children's pediatrician and daycare registration forms.
- M.J.B. also gave V.C. medical power of attorney over the children, and the couple jointly consulted an attorney about the possibility of V.C. adopting the children, though they never completed the process.
- The couple shared parental responsibilities, with M.J.B. fostering a family environment where V.C. functioned as a co-parent.
- In August 1996, M.J.B. ended her relationship with V.C. After initially allowing V.C. to have visitation with the twins, M.J.B. terminated all contact in May 1997.
Procedural Posture:
- V.C. filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part (trial court) seeking joint legal custody and visitation.
- The trial court denied both of V.C.'s applications, concluding she failed to establish she was a psychological parent and therefore lacked standing.
- V.C. appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of joint legal custody but reversed the denial of visitation, finding V.C. had established a parent-like relationship and that visitation was in the children's best interests. This decision was issued in three separate opinions, including two partial dissents.
- Both M.J.B. and V.C. appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the state's highest court.
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 a third party, who has no biological or adoptive relationship to a child, have legal standing to seek custody and visitation as a 'psychological parent' when the legal parent fostered the formation of a parent-child relationship between the third party and the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Long, J.
Yes. A third party has legal standing to seek custody and visitation as a psychological parent if they can satisfy a four-part test showing the legal parent fostered the creation of a parent-child bond. The court found that V.C. met this test and thus qualified as a psychological parent. The court's jurisdiction stems from both the state's custody statute, which allows for parental status based on 'context,' and its common law 'exceptional circumstances' doctrine. The court adopted the four-prong test from a Wisconsin case, which requires the petitioner to prove: (1) the legal parent consented to and fostered the parent-like relationship; (2) the petitioner and child lived together; (3) the petitioner assumed parental obligations without financial compensation; and (4) the relationship was long enough to establish a bonded, parental relationship. Once this status is established, the psychological parent stands in parity with the legal parent, and disputes are judged by the best interests of the child. Here, while joint legal custody was denied as too disruptive after a long absence from decision-making, visitation is presumed to be in the children's best interests and was granted.
Concurring - O'Hern, J.
Agreed with the majority's opinion and the standard it established. The author wrote separately to adhere to his dissenting views in a prior case, Watkins v. Nelson, clarifying that the standard for determining custody following the death of a custodial parent should be different from the one applied here to protect a grieving child.
Concurring - Long, J.
Agreed with the majority, but wrote separately to elaborate on the sociological and legal concept of 'family.' The author argued that the law must recognize the reality of parent-child relationships, which are defined by love, nurturance, and stability, not merely by biology, adoption, or the marital status of the adults. The values that society prizes in a family are not exclusive to the traditional nuclear model, and the finding of a psychological parent-child bond reflects the reality of a profound connection that the law should protect.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the doctrine of 'psychological parenthood' in New Jersey, creating a clear legal pathway for non-biological, non-adoptive parents to gain standing for custody and visitation. It significantly impacts non-traditional families, particularly same-sex couples, by providing a mechanism to protect established parent-child bonds. The ruling constrains the traditional, near-absolute right of a legal parent by holding that they cannot unilaterally sever a parental relationship that they voluntarily created and fostered. This prioritizes the child's best interest in maintaining stable, loving relationships over the legal parent's autonomy once a de facto family has been created.
