R.L. v. M.A.
209 A.3d 391
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Appellant (M.A.), the biological mother, and R.L., her former partner, conceived a child together via artificial insemination in 2012; R.L. was present at birth and the couple gave the child R.L.'s surname.
- The parties informally shared custody 50/50 on a week-to-week rotation from June 2014 until February 2018, when Appellant unilaterally stopped the rotation after R.L. contacted Appellant’s workplace.
- R.L. (non-biological partner) sought custody on May 10, 2018; the trial court granted R.L. in loco parentis standing and held a custody hearing.
- On August 28, 2018 the trial court awarded shared legal and physical custody with alternating weeks, concluding R.L. rebutted the statutory presumption favoring the biological parent by clear and convincing evidence.
- Appellant appealed, arguing (1) R.L. failed to meet the clear-and-convincing burden to obtain equal physical time and (2) the court erred in awarding equal time when § 5328 factors were evenly balanced. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | R.L.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nonparent must present clear and convincing evidence to obtain equal physical custodial time against a biological parent | R.L. needed to rebut the parental presumption by clear and convincing evidence tipping the scale in her favor (not merely to even) before receiving equal time | The nonparent must rebut the presumption; in shared-custody contexts rebuttal to "even" suffices because only primary custody requires tipping past even | The court held clear-and-convincing evidence that tipped the scale to even was sufficient to award shared physical custody; affirmed trial court's approach |
| Whether equal weighting of § 5328 factors requires awarding primary custody to the biological parent | If factors are evenly balanced, the parental presumption mandates awarding primary custody to the parent | Best-interests analysis governs; once in loco parentis status is recognized, the nonparent need not show parental unfitness, only that continuation of the relationship serves the child | The court rejected automatic award to parent when factors are equal; best-interests standard controls and shared custody was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (explains parental presumption and burden on third parties to rebut it)
- Charles v. Stehlik, 744 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 2000) (parental right to custody is prima facie but can be forfeited if third party shows best interests favor award)
- McDonel v. Sohn, 762 A.2d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2000) (third party must present weighty evidence to overcome parental presumption for primary custody)
- Jones v. Jones, 884 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. 2005) (nonbiological parent in loco parentis need not show biological parent unfit; must show by clear and convincing evidence maintenance of relationship serves child)
- M.J.S. v. B.B. v. B.B., 172 A.3d 651 (Pa. Super. 2017) (defines clear and convincing evidentiary standard)
- C.G. v. J.H., 193 A.3d 891 (Pa. 2018) (addressing scope of "parent" under § 5324(1) in evolving family contexts)
- M.L.S. v. T.H.-S., 195 A.3d 265 (Pa. Super. 2018) (defines in loco parentis and notes standing under § 5324)