Court denies visitation to ex-partner

How long is Maryland going to remain in the dark ages?? How dare that judge decide in his small pea size brain that both of those "parents" were not equally deserving of taking part nin their childs life??? I do not care if they are hetero/homo/whato that child deserves the attention of both of those women after their "divorce". After her pain lessens the custodial parent will give anything to have the help as in a free weekend etc. And it begs the questions if the child does not ever get to see this "parent" what tales might he/she be told, further destroying that young mind. You can see everyday the results of non-custodial parent absence, and here a homophobic member of our almighty judicial system decides he swing his mighty sword. But at the end of the slash lay a childs future.

JANG wrote:

How long is Maryland going to remain in the dark ages?? How dare that judge decide in his small pea size brain that both of those "parents" were not equally deserving of taking part nin their childs life??? I do not care if they are hetero/homo/whato that child deserves the attention of both of those women after their "divorce". After her pain lessens the custodial parent will give anything to have the help as in a free weekend etc. And it begs the questions if the child does not ever get to see this "parent" what tales might he/she be told, further destroying that young mind. You can see everyday the results of non-custodial parent absence, and here a homophobic member of our almighty judicial system decides he swing his mighty sword. But at the end of the slash lay a childs future.

Get your facts straight before posting. It’s not a singular judge; it’s a collection of judges that comprise an appeals court. And why do you comment on the gender of this imaginary judge? Check the court’s website: I doubt Lynne A. Battaglia is a male. Sounds like you’re the one with a problem with prejudice. And your ridiculous attempts at hyperbole—“swing mighty sword”…“end of the slash”—are negated when you can’t even spell “child’s” correctly.

FROM: the Maryland Court of Appeals decision]:

Janice M . v. Margaret K ., No. 122, September Term 2006. Opinion by Bell, C.J.

FAMILY LAW - DE FACTO PARENTHOOD -VISITATION

Maryland law does not recognize de facto parenthood. A legal parent possesses the constitutional rights to govern the care, custody and control of his or her child. A putative de facto parent who seeks visitation rights over the objection of a legal parent is a third party, and, as is required of other third parties who seek visitation rights, must demonstrate exceptional circumstances as a prerequisite to a court’s consideration of the best interests of the child.

-------

The ruling is completely consistent with the basic, well-developed principles of family law and it makes good sense to me.

It strikes the proper right balance of interests and nothing prevents the third-party "de facto" parent from appearing before the trial judge and making the necessary showing of "exceptional circumstances" justifying the third party's visitation -- which shouldn't be a hard showing to make if, as claimed, the third party is such a special influence in the child's life.

The effect of this ruling is simply that such a special influence must be DEMONSTRATED in each case, instead of being automatically PRESUMED in each case. I applaud the ruling by Maryland's high court.

Sam wrote:

<quoted text>
Get your facts straight before posting. It’s not a singular judge; it’s a collection of judges that comprise an appeals court. And why do you comment on the gender of this imaginary judge? Check the court’s website: I doubt Lynne A. Battaglia is a male. Sounds like you’re the one with a problem with prejudice. And your ridiculous attempts at hyperbole—“swing mighty sword”…“end of the slash”—are negated when you can’t even spell “child’s” correctly.

EXCELLENT post, Sam -- it's as if you read my mind, because I was thinking exactly the same things when I read the 1st poster's comment.

Based on the exsisting law, or in this case, the lack thereof, while the ruling is a tough one to face, the decision of the court was clearly a correct one. Without a clear-cut legal standard, passed by the legislature, courts are left in the position of having to micro-manage custody of children between the interests of natural and adoptive parents and the child's de facto parents (not only lesbian and gay partners, but unmarried heterosexual couples and even step-parents who haven't adopted their spouse's children as well). In order to keep this decision from causing complete chaos in the family court's of Maryland, legislators in the state are going to have to get off the proverbial stick and correct this tremendous gap in the state's custody laws...

Why not just ask the child..?

Rick in Kansas wrote:

... legislators in the state are going to have to get off the proverbial stick and correct this tremendous gap in the state's custody laws...

LOL. Good luck with that.

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL. Good luck with that.

First Massachusetts, then California, which domino will fall next?

I think the courts should be required to take the child's thoughts and feelings into consideration no matter what the age. They may find there is no bond what so ever with the one who claims they are a de-facto parent and the required visits are actually harming the child physically or psychologically. We hear cases all the time were step parents abuse, harm or even worse kill the child. I myself was abused by my step parent. With this said the courts should not be allowed to force a child to see anyone they wish not to see just because someone claims they should be considered a de-facto parent and have the same rights as the parent has. Come on!

Crossy wrote:

Why not just ask the child..?

Because that would be the correct, compassionate, logical and child-centered thing to do.

Adoption rarely, if ever, takes the adoptee's feelings into consideration.

I feel so sorry for this child.

The Case has more to due with the fact that one of the parties did not follow through and adopt the child herself, it she had done that this would be a non-iddue they would be on equal footing, but she is not a legal parent to the child; therefore there are additional standards that apply. The case was sent back to Circuit Cout if she passes that addidtion standards required for a non-parent she will still get visitation.

I read this article and I know both parties. I know Janice, Margaret and Maya. This article seems to paint Margaret as a victim and she is not. This article says they were a lesbian couple and they were not. As far as Maya. Margaret did not have anything to with the Maya's adoption. Maya did not want to be with Margaret and she would cry the whole time she was with her. On Mothers Day, Maya was with Margaret and she cried the whole time wanting her mother Janice. This whole time Janice and Maya were the victim.

Crossy wrote:

Why not just ask the child..?

I have and she says Janice is her mom and Margaret was a friend of her mommy that was trying to take her away from her mother.

TKST wrote:

I think the courts should be required to take the child's thoughts and feelings into consideration no matter what the age. They may find there is no bond what so ever with the one who claims they are a de-facto parent and the required visits are actually harming the child physically or psychologically. We hear cases all the time were step parents abuse, harm or even worse kill the child. I myself was abused by my step parent. With this said the courts should not be allowed to force a child to see anyone they wish not to see just because someone claims they should be considered a de-facto parent and have the same rights as the parent has. Come on!

Maya got physically ill everytime she would have to visit Margaret.

We must protect our children. What part of the de facto parent standard law does Maryland Equality object to?
Would they eliminate that "a person would have to show that the legal parent fostered such a relationship" or perhaps they would throw out that "the third party lived with the child and performed parental functions to a significant degree" or could just anyone take over parental rights regardless of "a child-parent bond was forged".

Eliminating these standards could allow any pervert to take a child and molest them.

We must have "rigorous" laws to protect our children. As typical Maryland Equality and groups like them look no further than their interests - very self-centered, very selfish.

I just have one comment, is anyone thinking about the children? Nowadays with divorce, relationships that do not last, children are bounced around between parent, significant others, etc. Now people want the courts to recognize boyfriends and girlfriends in a broken relationship with a parent having a right to visitation with the parents children and trumping the parents rights? Where does this end?

I just read Jan's comment and I completely agree with you.

It is a parents right and responsility to determine what is in the best interest of their child and A third Party should not be able to over rule that decision without proving that the parent is unfit or that there are exceptional circumstances that will cause the child harm if the releationship does not continue, no matter who the third party is.

I know Maya. You have never seen her cry her eyes out scared to death that her only mom Janice will be taken away from her. She never thought of the other party Margaret as her mother and never once in her life called her mom. Maya had been forced by the court to spend time away from her real and only mother Janice. This has devastated her. This new ruling is the best thing that has happened to Maya in two years to be able to know she does not have to spend time with this women that she now hates for trying to take her away from her only mother Janice. Unless you know the real story please don't judge. The real story will come out if not before when Maya is able to write her own book and explain the pain she has gone through.

JANG wrote:

How long is Maryland going to remain in the dark ages?? How dare that judge decide in his small pea size brain that both of those "parents" were not equally deserving of taking part nin their childs life??? I do not care if they are hetero/homo/whato that child deserves the attention of both of those women after their "divorce". After her pain lessens the custodial parent will give anything to have the help as in a free weekend etc. And it begs the questions if the child does not ever get to see this "parent" what tales might he/she be told, further destroying that young mind. You can see everyday the results of non-custodial parent absence, and here a homophobic member of our almighty judicial system decides he swing his mighty sword. But at the end of the slash lay a childs future.

Family wrote:

I know Maya. You have never seen her cry her eyes out scared to death that her only mom Janice will be taken away from her. She never thought of the other party Margaret as her mother and never once in her life called her mom. Maya had been forced by the court to spend time away from her real and only mother Janice. This has devastated her. This new ruling is the best thing that has happened to Maya in two years to be able to know she does not have to spend time with this women that she now hates for trying to take her away from her only mother Janice. Unless you know the real story please don't judge. The real story will come out if not before when Maya is able to write her own book and explain the pain she has gone through.
<quoted text>

Thank you Family for speaking for Janice and Maya. People need to know what Maya went through. One other thing, the statement that Margaret was Janice's partner is so wrong. I thought the truth was to be reported. Margaret should be ashamed of herself for putting everyone through this ordeal.