Lana Walker v. Warren Riley
498 P.3d 33
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Lana Walker (grandmother) cared for her granddaughter E.L. from about 3 months old and performed full parenting duties for ~13 years; E.L. calls Walker "mom."
- E.L.’s mother, Toscanini Birch, consented to a court order granting nonparental custody/guardianship to Walker; Birch had supervised visits and later sought to modify custody after achieving sobriety and stability.
- Walker petitioned to be adjudicated a de facto parent under RCW 26.26A.440; Birch opposed, disputing standing and specifically the "holding out" and consent factors.
- A superior court commissioner dismissed Walker’s petition for lack of standing, finding Walker had not "held out" E.L. as her child because she never claimed a biological relationship.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, adopting Division Two’s approach (L.J.M.) that a petition must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate each of the seven statutory factors for de facto parentage; disputed factual issues go to an expedited hearing.
- The court clarified that "holding out" requires asserting a parental/parent-like status through parental acts (decisionmaking, caretaking), not claiming biological parentage; a legal parent’s prolonged inaction after becoming capable of parenting can constitute consent that fostered the parent-like relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walker) | Defendant's Argument (Birch) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for standing under RCW 26.26A.440(3) | Petition need only allege facts supporting de facto elements; disputed facts resolved at hearing (J.D.W. approach) | Commissioner’s dismissal was correct under a stricter reading | Adopt L.J.M.: petition must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate each of the seven statutory factors; disputed material facts go to an expedited hearing |
| Meaning of "held out" the child as one’s own | Does not require claiming biological parentage; requires acting as parent (parental decisionmaking, household membership) | "Held out" requires stronger/literal showing (commissioner required claim of parenthood) | "Holding out" means asserting parental/parent-like status by conduct and responsibilities, not falsely claiming biological status |
| Whether Birch consented/fostered the parent-like relationship | Initial consent to guardianship and long delay (six years) in seeking custody while capable amounts to consent/fostering | Guardianship and court involvement negate implied parental consent; no voluntary fostering | If a legal parent becomes capable but voluntarily remains absent and does not re-engage, that inaction can constitute consent and foster the relationship; guardianship does not automatically preclude de facto status |
| Proper disposition of commissioner’s dismissal | Dismissal premature; Walker should get expedited hearing on disputed standing facts | Dismissal was proper for lack of holding-out evidence | Reversed dismissal and remanded for a hearing to determine whether Walker proves the seven factors for standing under clarified definitions |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wn.2d 679 (Wash. 2005) (established common-law de facto parent limits and parental-role requirement)
- In re Parentage of J.D.W., 14 Wn. App. 2d 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020) (discussed threshold standing and material disputed facts at preliminary stage)
- In re Parentage of L.J.M., 15 Wn. App. 2d 588 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020) (held petition must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate each statutory element for standing)
- In re Custody of A.F.J., 179 Wn.2d 179 (Wash. 2013) (foster/guardian status does not automatically bar de facto parent recognition)
- In re Custody of B.M.H., 179 Wn.2d 224 (Wash. 2013) (de facto parentage doctrine requires legal parent’s consent and fostering to protect constitutional parental rights)
- In re Parentage of J.B.R., 184 Wn. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (parental voluntary absence can amount to consent fostering a petitioner-child relationship)