140 A.3d 461
Me.2016Background
- Child born in Feb 2010 to Nicole Carey and Benjamin Knight; Knight was largely absent after the child’s infancy.
- Carey moved with the child into Todd Kilborn’s home in Maine when the child was ~2 months old; Carey and Kilborn later married and held an informal "adoption" ceremony.
- Kilborn provided extensive, day-to-day parental care (feeding, bathing, bedtime routines), reduced work hours to provide childcare, and was presented to family and the child as the child’s "daddy."
- Kilborn and Carey had two more children together; all three children were raised as siblings and Kilborn’s extended family acted as grandparents and relatives to the child.
- After the couple’s relationship broke down, Carey denied Kilborn access to the child and reintroduced Knight; Kilborn sued in divorce proceedings seeking de facto parent status and parental rights.
- After a two-day hearing the District Court found by clear and convincing evidence that Kilborn satisfied both prongs of the Pitts de facto-parent test and granted de facto parenthood; Carey appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carey) | Defendant's Argument (Kilborn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kilborn undertook a "permanent, unequivocal, committed, and responsible parental role" | Kilborn could not show an unequivocal parental role because Knight never consented to relinquish parental status | Carey expressly intended Kilborn to act as the child’s parent; Knight tacitly consented by long absence | Court held Kilborn satisfied the first prong by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether "exceptional circumstances" exist to allow court interference with a legal parent's rights (harm requirement) | Trial court vacillated and did not adequately show substantial negative effect from removal | Removal would substantially and negatively affect the child (therapist testimony, recordings, family separation) | Court held Kilborn met second prong; removal posed substantial risk of harm |
| Adequacy of trial court factfinding and standard of proof | Findings insufficient and unclear about required proof of harm | Trial court’s findings were supported by competent evidence and used clear-and-convincing standard | Appellate court found no clear error and affirmed |
| Whether Pitts should be overruled in favor of a long-term-harm requirement | Argues higher long-term harm standard should apply | Pitts remains controlling; Legislature is addressing de facto parentage separately | Court declined to adopt dissent’s higher standard and affirmed Pitts-based analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitts v. Moore, 90 A.3d 1169 (Me. 2014) (articulating two-part de facto parent test requiring permanent parental role and exceptional circumstances/harm)
- C.L. v. L.L., 125 A.3d 350 (Me. 2015) (applies and quotes Pitts de facto-parent standard)
- Davis v. Anderson, 953 A.2d 1166 (Me. 2008) (recognizes parent’s fundamental right to care and custody of children)
- Ireland v. Tardiff, 107 A.3d 618 (Me. 2014) (standard for reviewing trial-court factual findings)