V.C. V. M.J.B.
725 A.2d 13 (1999)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff appealed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County (New Jersey), which denied her request for joint legal custody and visitation of two minors. Plaintiff claimed that she was the psychological mother of the minors who were the biological children of defendant.

FACTS: P and D were women who maintained a lesbian relationship lasting almost four years. D saw a fertility doctor and wanted to have a baby by artificial insemination. P learned of mis effort and eventually D got pregnant. During D's pregnancy bom P and D prepared for the birth as they moved to a larger apartment as it was discovered mat D was going to have twins. They also prepared wills, powers of attorney, and named each other as the beneficiary for their respective life insurance polices and opened joint checking accounts for their household expenses. The parties also decided mat P would be called Meema by the children. P was very involved in all aspects of preparing for birth from Lamaze classes, to day care, to vacation time after the birth and to being present during the birth. P was listed as the other mother on the pediatrician and day care registration forms. In 1995, they jointly purchased a house and were married in a commitment ceremony. The children were present at the ceremony. Savings accounts were opened for the children and mere was talk about |adoption. The parties met with an attorney for mat purpose and D gave the attorney a two thousand dollar retainer. Two months later, D ended her relationship with P and by the j winter, P had moved out of the home but spent every other weekend with the children. During mis time P contributed money towards the children's1 expenses. D even left the children jwith P for two weeks while away on business. D men stopped accepting money from P for the children. P is living with a new partner and so is D. During trial, P asserted mat D and she had jointly decided to have the children and mat they were coparents and mat P had helped D select the sperm donor and mat P was a loving parent of the children. Experts were used and bom experts came to the same conclusion mat the children looked upon P as a parent and mat the children would be affected by the loss of P. It was also expressed mat eventually the children might be caught in the middle of the poor relations between P and D. The trial judge denied P's application for custody in mat P failed to establish mat the relationship with the children had risen to loco parentis; the present case lacks the somewhat clear parental relationship between P and the children mat has been present and shown in other cases where a claim of psychological parent was successfully argued. P was also denied visitation because an in loco parentis relationship with a stepchild ends when the relationship is terminated.

ISSUE: If a third party is able to show mat he or she stands in the shoes of a parent to a child and thus in parity with the natural parent, should the best interests standard be used to determine custody and visitation?

RULE OF LAW: If a third party is able to show mat he or she stands in the shoes of a parent to a child and thus in parity with the natural parent, the best interests standard must be used to determine visitation.

HOLDING: The Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, denied request for joint custody and terminated all visitation with children. Former partner appealed. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Stern, P.J.A.D., held that: (1) former partner was not entitled to custody of children, but (2) former partner was entitled to visitation with children. Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

ANALYSIS The court affirmed the order denying joint custody because plaintiff's relationship with the children did not rise to the level of being a psychological parent and joint custody was not in the minors' best interest. The court reversed the order denying plaintiff visitation and remanded the case to establish a visitation schedule because plaintiff had a bonded relationship with the children and continued visitation was in their best interest.