De Los Milagros Castellat v. Pereira
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11733
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Former partners Vivian de los Milagros Castellat (petitioner) and Gisela Lissette Pereira (birth mother) were domestic partners for ~10 years and used assisted reproductive technology; Pereira gave birth to twins in 2009.
- The couple raised the surviving twin together for ~4 years; both participated in care, shared a home, and discussed adoption but no adoption was completed.
- After the parties separated in 2013, Pereira severed the child’s contact with Castellat and changed the child’s surname; Castellat filed a petition seeking parentage and visitation under multiple theories.
- Castellat’s petition included claims under statutory parentage (Ch. 743), implied contract, equitable estoppel, declaratory relief, common-law visitation, and constitutional due process/privacy grounds.
- The trial court dismissed the petition with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction/failure to state a claim; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Castellat) | Defendant's Argument (Pereira) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Castellat can establish parental rights/visitation despite not being biological or legal parent | Castellat asserted she acted as a parent (psychological parent), intended to parent the child, and sought recognition via statute, contract/equitable doctrines, and constitutional protections | Pereira argued Castellat is neither biological nor legal parent, no adoption occurred, and the state may not override her parental privacy right absent a showing of harm to the child | Held: Petition dismissed/affirmed — nonparent claims for parentage/compulsory visitation cannot override birth mother’s constitutional privacy right absent demonstrable harm |
| Whether pre- or post-birth agreements or intent can bind a birth parent and create enforceable visitation rights for a nonparent | Castellat relied on the parties’ mutual intent and prior consultations (and analogies to D.M.T.) to argue enforceability | Pereira maintained such agreements/intent cannot constitutionally bind her parental decisions without evidence of child harm | Held: Agreements or mutual intent do not overcome privacy protection for a birth parent when the claimant is not a biological/legal parent; D.M.T. distinguished where the claimant was a biological parent |
| Whether D.M.T. v. T.M.H. compels recognizing nonbirth partner’s rights here | Castellat argued D.M.T. supports protecting intended parental relationships in assisted-reproduction contexts | Pereira and court noted D.M.T. involved a biological (genetic) parent and does not extend to non-biological, non-legal partners | Held: D.M.T. is distinguishable and does not require recognizing rights of a non-biological, non-legal partner |
Key Cases Cited
- Xavier v. Leviev Boymelgreen Marquis Developers, LLC, 117 So.3d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (motion to dismiss accepts well-pled facts as true)
- Wakeman v. Dixon, 921 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (affirming dismissal of nonbirth partner’s parental-rights claim absent harm)
- Russell v. Pasik, 178 So.3d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (nonbiological/nonlegal claimants lack same parental rights as biological/legal parents)
- D.M.T. v. T.M.H., 129 So.3d 320 (Fla. 2013) (distinguishing genetic parent’s constitutional protection from waivers intended for anonymous donors)
- Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So.2d 510 (Fla. 1998) (Florida Constitution affords broad parental privacy protection)
- Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1996) (State cannot impose grandparent visitation absent demonstrable harm)
- Kazmierazak v. Query, 736 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (criticizing psychological-parent decisions for failing to account for parental privacy)
- Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 2000) (privacy decisions impliedly overruled earlier cases granting visitation without showing harm)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights to care, custody, and control are fundamental)