Donald Jacob Merkel (Donald) appeals an order dismissing his motion for visitation rights with the minor child of Tamera Cooper (Tamera). We affirm.
FACTS
Donald and Tamera lived together for seven years, however, Donald is not the legal or biological father of Tamera’s son. On September 5, 1989, Tamera filed a pro se petition for protection from domestic abuse against Donald. A hearing was held and, on October 6, 1989, the trial court entered an order restraining Dоnald from committing any acts of domestic abuse against Tamera and further restraining him from going to Tamera’s residence. The order also provided that Dоnald, “may be allowed to contact the son of [Tamera] ... at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of visitаtion.”
On March 29, 1990, Donald filed a motion for a trial court order granting him a schedule of visitation with Tamera’s son. The motion asserted that Donald had assumed pаrt of the responsibility for raising the boy, that Donald was a de facto parent to him and, therefore, that Donald should be granted the opportunity to visit him. On May 16, 1990, the trial court informed Donald’s counsel that it wanted the parties to brief the question of whether Donald, not being the boy’s biological father, had standing to request visitation. The parties stipulated to a briefing schedule approved by the trial court and subsequently submitted their briefs.
The trial court issued its decision on June 6, 1990, holding аt common law a nonpar-ent had no right to visitation with a minor child and in the absence of any statute it lacked authority to order nonparent visitation. The trial court entered its order of dismissal and Donald appeals.
ISSUE
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING DONALD’S MOTION FOR VISITATION?
A court may, on its own initiative, dismiss a complaint under SDCL 15-6-12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim on whiсh relief can be granted.
See, K/O Ranch, Inc. v. Norwest Bank of Black Hills,
Donald contends that factual matters outside the pleadings were submitted to the trial court in Tamera’s brief. As a consequence, Donald argues that the trial court erred in not converting the dismissal procеeding to a summary judgment proceeding. He argues this denied him an opportunity to present the trial court with additional matters pertinent to his claim. We disagree.
While extraneous matters were submitted to the trial court in Tamera’s brief, the only matters pertinent to the ultimate decision were contained in the рleadings, i.e., that Donald is a nonparent seeking visitation rights with a minor child. This fact is clear from Tamera’s original petition for a protection order and is not disputed on appeal. Thus, although extraneous matters may have been submitted, the record is clear that, in contrast with Glanzer, the extraneous matters wеre not relevant to the trial court’s ultimate legal determination that nonparents have no visitation rights with minor children. Thus, the trial court did not err in failing to convert the dismissal proceeding to one for summary judgment. Such a conversion would have served no useful purpose as the key facts relevant to the trial сourt’s decision were contained in the pleadings and were not disputed.
Donald contends that he should have been afforded the opportunity to present facts establishing that he was a de facto parent to Tamera's son or that he stood in loco parentis 1 to the boy. He argues that prоof of these facts would have established his claim for visitation rights with the child. 2
This court has not spoken directly to the issue of the visitation rights of a nonparent. Hоwever, “[t]he right of visitation derives from the right of custody and is controlled by the same legal principles.” 59 Am.Jur.2d Parent and Child § 36 (1987). This court has spoken to the custodial rights of nonparents.
Before a parent’s right to custody over his or her оwn children will be disturbed in favor of a nonparent a clear showing against the parent of “gross misconduct or unfitness, or of other extraordinary circumstanсes affecting the welfare of the child” is required, and an award cannot be made to [nonparents] simply because they may be better custodians.
Langerman v. Langerman,
A similar test was employed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeаls in
Jackson v. Fitzgerald,
In the absence of any charge of unfitness or misconduct, there was plainly no basis for disturbing the father’s right to custody. And, logically, thе same must be said as to the claim for visitation rights. The right of visitation derives from the right to custody. The court could not award the plaintiff visitation rights without impinging on the father’s vested right of custody. And that could not be done on the basis of the barren complaint we have described.
Jackson,
Like the complaint in Jackson, Donald’s motion for visitation contаined no charge that Tamera was unfit or guilty of misconduct nor was there any allegation of unusual circumstances. The motion merely alleged that Donald helped raise Tamera’s son and that having assumed part of that responsibility he should be granted the opportunity to visit the boy. Thus, as in Jackson and under the settled law of hanger man, the trial court apрropriately dismissed Donald’s motion for failure to state a claim.
Affirmed.
Notes
. "A person standing in loco parentis to a child is one who has put himself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relation, without going through the formalities necessary to a legal adoption, and the rights, duties, and liabilities of such person are the same as those of the lawful parent....”
Cornhusker Christian Child. Home v. DSS,
. Of the numerous in loco parentis cases cited in Donald’s brief, the only one specifically addressing the issue of nonparent visitation rights is
Gribble v. Gribble,
. We do not reach the issue of whether a similar test would be applicable to a grandparent’s claim for visitation rights under SDCL 25-4-52.