Third party that has established parent-child relationship with child had standing to seek custody

Third party that has established parent-child relationship with child had standing to seek custody

Ellison v. Ramos, 502 S.E.2d 891 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998). The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that where a third party and a child had an established relationship of the parent-child nature, the third party had standing as an "other person" under N.C. GEN. STAT. 50-13.1(a) to seek custody.

Here, a couple had an intimate relationship for five years but never married. During that time, the woman cared for the man's daughter, who lived at the woman's apartment five days per week. After the couple separated, the child lived with the woman until the man took the child to live with her grandparents. The woman sued the man, seeking custody. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint, finding that she lacked standing.

Reversing, the appellate court noted that under the statute, a parent, relative, or other person may sue for custody. The state high court has indicated there are limits on the "other persons" who can bring such an action, however, noting the statute was not intended to give strangers the right to seek custody of children unrelated to them.

Citing case law, the court said it is clear that a relationship based on a simple assertion of interest in a child's welfare is insufficient to establish standing. Thus, a third party who has no relationship with a child does not have standing. A relationship in the nature of a parent-child relationship, however-even absent a biological relationship-is sufficient to confer standing.

Here, the court noted, plaintiff alleged that (1) she is the only mother the child has ever known, (2) the child lived with plaintiff after the parties separated, and (3) during the parties' relationship, plaintiff took the child to doctor appointments and to school, attended teacher conferences, bought all of the child's necessities, and otherwise acted as the responsible parent. These allegations, the court reasoned, suggest a relationship in the nature of a parentchild relationship. Thus, plaintiff has standing to seek custody of the child.

Turning to whether plaintiff alleged a cause of action for which relief may be granted, the court noted that natural parents have a constitutionally protected interest in raising their children. Thus, absent a finding that natural parents are either unfit or have neglected a child's welfare, that interest must prevail. Here, the court observed, defendant placed the child in the custody of her grandparents, who allegedly did not properly care for the child's diabetes. Moreover, defendant had relinquished custody to othersincluding plaintiff-on several occasions. These factors suggest defendant acted in a manner inconsistent with his protected status as a parent, and thus, is not entitled to the natural parent presumption. Accordingly, the court remanded. Plaintiff's Counsel:

IL Terrell Milner, Chapel Hill, N.C.

Copyright Association of Trial Lawyers of America Dec 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved