## Facts

- Laurie Holt (mother) had two children: C.H. with Michael Holt, and B.M.H. with another man who died before B.M.H.’s birth.
- During the pregnancy and after birth, Michael provided substantial support, was present at B.M.H.’s birth, and acted in a parental role.
- Laurie and Michael married shortly after B.M.H.’s birth and divorced in 2001; their parenting plan addressed only C.H.
- By informal agreement, B.M.H. followed the same residential schedule as C.H., and Michael maintained an ongoing parent-like relationship with B.M.H.
- Laurie changed B.M.H.’s last name to Holt at one point; Michael held himself out as B.M.H.’s father.
- When Laurie planned to move farther away, Michael sought to formalize his relationship with B.M.H.
- Michael filed (1) a nonparental (third-party) custody petition under ch. 26.10 RCW and (2) alternatively, a petition to be adjudicated a de facto parent.
- The trial court dismissed the de facto parentage claim in light of a prior decision restricting de facto parentage where a statutory remedy is available, but found adequate cause to proceed on nonparental custody.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed adequate cause for nonparental custody and reinstated the de facto parentage claim.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review on whether former stepparents are barred from de facto parentage and whether adequate cause supported the nonparental custody petition.

## Issues

1. Whether prior precedent categorically bars a former stepparent from pursuing adjudication as a de facto parent.
2. Whether the petitioner established adequate cause and a sufficient basis under ch. 26.10 RCW to proceed with a nonparental (third-party) custody action against a parent.

## Decision

- The court held that prior precedent does not impose a categorical bar on former stepparents bringing de facto parentage actions.
- The court allowed Michael to maintain his de facto parentage petition for further proceedings.
- The court held Michael did not meet the high burden required for third-party custody sufficient to proceed on his nonparental custody claim.
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with its rulings, permitting litigation of de facto parentage while rejecting third-party custody.

## Legal Principles

- De facto parentage remains available as a common-law doctrine when statutory family-law remedies do not address the asserted parent-child relationship.
- A former stepparent is not automatically disqualified from seeking de facto parent status; eligibility depends on the facts and the de facto parentage test.
- The de facto parentage framework protects a legal parent’s constitutional rights by requiring proof that the legal parent consented to and fostered the petitioner’s parent-like relationship with the child.
- Third-party custody under ch. 26.10 RCW imposes a stringent standard and a strong presumption favoring a fit parent; a petitioner must show more than a beneficial relationship to justify displacing or overriding the parent’s custodial decisions.

## Conclusion

The court permitted a former stepfather to pursue de facto parentage because the doctrine is not categorically unavailable to former stepparents and can address relationships not covered by statute, but it rejected his attempt to proceed on third-party custody because the demanding statutory and constitutional standards for displacing a fit parent were not satisfied.


In re Custody of B.M.H., 179 Wn.2d 224, 315 P.3d 470 (Wash. 2013)