192 A.3d 929
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- Father (Hale Kpetigo) and Parent (Rebecca Kpetigo) were married; they raised L (their biological son) and F (Father’s son from a prior relationship) together for years, with Parent performing extensive caregiving for F from infancy.
- F lived with Father and Parent from about age 3 and had a close parental bond with Parent; Parent sought to adopt F earlier but did not proceed out of concern for F’s birth mother.
- The parties separated in 2015 and entered a Voluntary Separation Agreement in March 2016 addressing custody of L (2/2/5/5 schedule) and $300/month child support, but not F’s custody or Parent’s visitation rights.
- After the separation, Father curtailed Parent’s access to F; Parent sued for divorce, enforcement, child support for L, tie-breaking authority for L, and visitation with F.
- The circuit court found Parent met the Conover de facto-parent factors as to F, awarded Parent visitation with F, granted joint legal custody of L with tie-breaking authority to Parent, and recalculated child support for L to $1,057/month.
- On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed all rulings except remanded the child support award for recalculation or explanation because the court apparently used an outdated income figure for Parent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parent) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parent qualifies as F’s de facto parent | Parent argues she satisfied Conover factors (consent/fostered relationship, cohabitation, assumed parental obligations, bonded relationship) | Father contends Conover applies only to same-sex spouses and that Parent is a third party who must show parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances | Court held Conover applies generally (not limited to same-sex couples) and Parent met the de facto-parent test; visitation awarded as in F’s best interest |
| Standard to evaluate visitation vs. third-party framework | Apply Conover de facto-parent test when biological parent fostered the parental-like relationship | Use traditional third-party test requiring parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances to override parental rights | Court applied Conover correctly; focused on best interests once de facto status proved |
| Child support calculation for L | Parent sought guideline recalculation based on income (presented both older and updated salary figures) | Father argued court used wrong (older, lower) income figure for Parent in guideline worksheet | Court remanded: vacate/support continues pending recalculation using Parent’s updated salary or explanation for using older figure |
| Tie-breaking authority in joint legal custody of L | Parent requested tie-breaking authority to resolve impasses | Father argued tie-breaking undermines joint legal custody and should be rare | Court found communication failures and credibility concerns with Father justified awarding tie-breaking authority to Parent; affirmed as not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Conover v. Conover, 450 Md. 51 (Md. 2016) (adopting Wisconsin de facto-parent test and recognizing de facto parent status in Maryland)
- Janice M. v. Margaret K., 404 Md. 661 (Md. 2008) (prior refusal to recognize de facto-parent status)
- Koshko v. Haining, 398 Md. 404 (Md. 2007) (third-party custody/visitation framework requiring unfitness or exceptional circumstances)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290 (Md. 1986) (best-interests factors for custody/visitation)
- Santo v. Santo, 448 Md. 620 (Md. 2016) (recognition and limits of joint legal custody with tie-breaking authority)