## Facts

- K.A.F. and F.D., formerly domestic partners, planned a child through sperm donation; K.A.F. gave birth to Arthur.
- K.A.F. and F.D. ended their relationship but continued shared parenting.
- F.D. later adopted Arthur, becoming a legal parent alongside K.A.F.
- K.A.F. entered a domestic partnership with D.L.M. (D.M.), who became significantly involved in Arthur’s daily life and care.
- K.A.F. and D.M.’s domestic partnership ended; K.A.F. initially permitted continued contact between D.M. and Arthur, then ended visitation.
- D.M. filed suit seeking custody/visitation as Arthur’s psychological parent, asserting she functioned as a parent with K.A.F.’s encouragement.

## Issues

1. Whether a third party’s psychological-parent claim must be dismissed as a matter of law when a child has two fit legal parents and one legal parent did not consent to the parent-like relationship.
2. Whether summary judgment was improper because material factual disputes existed concerning consent/fostering and the alleged parent-like relationship, requiring a plenary hearing.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the order granting summary judgment dismissing D.M.’s complaint and remanded for a plenary hearing.
- The court rejected a categorical rule that psychological-parent status requires consent from both legal parents whenever two legal parents exist.
- The court held the record contained material factual disputes about consent/fostering and the nature, duration, and depth of D.M.’s role that could not be resolved on summary judgment.
- The court did not declare D.M. a psychological parent; it required fact-finding under the governing test before any best-interests determination.

## Legal Principles

- A third party may be recognized as a psychological parent upon proof that: (1) a legal parent consented to and fostered a parent-like relationship; (2) the third party and child lived together; (3) the third party assumed significant parental responsibilities without expectation of compensation; and (4) the relationship endured long enough to form a bonded, dependent parental-type relationship.
- The “consent and fostering” element is fact-sensitive and does not automatically require consent by both legal parents solely because two legal parents exist.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate in family matters where certifications and documents reveal genuine disputes of material fact about the child’s relationships and parenting arrangements; such disputes require a plenary hearing.
- If psychological-parent status is established, the third party stands on equal footing with a legal parent for custody and visitation determinations, which then turn on the child’s best interests, subject to constitutional protections for parental autonomy.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division required a plenary hearing to assess the asserted psychological-parent relationship and held that the absence of one legal parent’s consent does not, by itself, bar a psychological-parent claim when two legal parents are present.


K.A.F. v. D.L.M., 437 N.J. Super. 123, 96 A.3d 975 (App. Div. 2014)