Chatterjee v. King
149 N.M. 625
N.M. Ct. App.2010Background
- Petitioner, in a same-sex relationship with the child’s Respondent, seeks parentage and custody/visitation for the adopted child.
- The child was adopted in Russia by Respondent; Petitioner did not adopt and did not have formal legal custody.
- Petitioner alleges they and Respondent co-parented the child for years and held themselves out as parents.
- Respondent moved with the child to Colorado; she limited Petitioner’s visitation until it ceased altogether.
- District court dismissed the petition, holding that 40-4-9.1(K) limits standing to natural/adoptive parents and that the UPA does not apply to Petitioner.
- The court also rejected urging that equitable powers or extraordinary circumstances could override standing limits for custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 40-4-9.1(K) limits standing for custody to natural/adoptive parents | Chatterjee argues non-parent standing under L(L5) and policy exceptions | King contends only natural/adoptive parents may seek custody absent unfitness | Statute limits standing to natural/adoptive parents; no extraordinary circumstances proven |
| Whether the UPA can grant Petitioner standing as a presumptive natural mother | Petitioner argues holding out creates presumption of natural parenthood | Respondent argues UPA provisions do not apply to Petitioner and reading would render statutes surplus | UPA provisions do not apply to Petitioner; does not confer standing for custody |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances or equity can override standing limits for custody | Petitioner asserts extraordinary circumstances justify standing | Respondent relies on statutory limits and public policy | Extraordinary circumstances not shown; limited to extraordinary-case framework, not here |
| Whether Petitioner may be granted standing for visitation despite custody standing limits | Petitioner seeks visitation rights based on best interests and existing parent-like bond | Respondent opposes non-parent visitation under statutory standing limits | District court may consider best interests and equitable powers to grant visitation standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhinehart v. Nowlin, 111 N.M. 319 (Ct.App.1990) (distinguishes custody vs. visitation and parental preference in custody)
- In re Guardianship of Ashleigh R., 2002-NMCA-103 (N.M.App. Ct. 2002) (parens patriae-like parental preference and non-parent standing principles)
- A.C. v. C.B., 113 N.M. 581 (Ct.App.1992) (colorable standing for non-traditional parental rights in long-term relationships)
- Barnae v. Barnae, 1997-NMCA-077 (N.M.App. 1997) (non-traditional parental standing stemming from prolonged caregiving relationships)
- In re Adoption of J.J.B., 119 N.M. 638 (S. Ct. 1995) (extraordinary circumstances may override the statutory standing limits)
- Vescio v. Wolf, 2009-NMCA-129 (N.M.App. Ct. 2009) (analysis of standing and parental relationships in non-traditional contexts)
- Grant v. Cumiford, 2005-NMCA-058 (N.M.App. 2005) (application of custody presumptions in non-marital contexts)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights are fundamental but not a bare prohibition on non-parent visitation in all contexts)