McKenzie v. Moore
453 S.W.3d 686
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Diana Moore (stepmother) married M.M.’s father after dating him; she was involved in M.M.’s life from age six through the father’s death in July 2013.
- Father had sole custody of M.M. beginning in August 2008; M.M. lived with Moore and her husband after their marriage.
- Moore regularly cared for M.M.: overnight stays, meals, attending school events, medical appointments, extracurriculars, homework help, travel, and acting as trustee for a trust for the children.
- After the father died, Moore sought court-ordered visitation to preserve the child’s relationship with Moore and the home they shared.
- The circuit court found Moore stood in loco parentis and awarded visitation (one weekend per month; two weeks per year; Father’s Day). McKenzie (mother) appealed.
Issues
| Issue | McKenzie’s Argument | Moore’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore stood in loco parentis to M.M. | Moore was only a caring stepparent/babysitter; marriage duration and duties don’t show parental status | Moore assumed parental obligations, provided primary caregiving, and had parental-type responsibilities | Court found Moore stood in loco parentis; appellate court affirmed |
| Whether child’s testimony could support in loco parentis finding | Court over-relied on M.M.’s testimony; testimony of affection alone insufficient | M.M.’s credible testimony demonstrated parent-like relationship and best interest of child | Court credited M.M.’s testimony as significant and persuasive |
| Whether visitation was warranted given competing custody interests | Visitation unnecessary because Moore lacked parental status | Visitation promotes continuity of important parent-like relationship after father’s death | Visitation granted as in child’s best interest |
| Proper standard of review for factual findings | Not disputed; McKenzie argues clear error | Moore relies on trial court’s credibility determinations | Appellate court applied de novo review but deferred to trial court’s factual findings and credibility; no clear error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniel v. Spivey, 386 S.W.3d 424 (Ark. 2012) (discusses limits on inferring in loco parentis from caregiving acts)
- Robinson v. Ford-Robinson, 362 Ark. 232 (Ark. 2004) (affirms in loco parentis where petitioner acted as primary caregiving parent)
- Bethany v. Jones, 378 S.W.3d 731 (Ark. 2011) (in loco parentis recognized where nonbiological co-parent was primary caregiver)
- Standridge v. Standridge, 304 Ark. 364 (Ark. 1990) (mere stepparent status insufficient to establish in loco parentis)
- Rutkowski v. Wasko, 143 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955) (parental relationship requires more than furnishing necessities and limited control)