## Facts

- Teri A. Latham and Susan Rae Schwerdtfeger were in a committed same-sex relationship from about 1985 to 2006.
- The parties jointly decided to have a child through assisted reproduction; they jointly chose a sperm donor and both contributed financially.
- Schwerdtfeger gave birth to P.S. in January 2001.
- Latham participated in prenatal care, was present at birth, took leave to help care for Schwerdtfeger and P.S., and shared day-to-day parenting tasks.
- Latham asserted she functioned as a coparent “in every way,” including discipline, care, medical and school involvement, and financial support; P.S. called her “Mom.”
- After the 2006 separation, Latham claimed she continued frequent contact (three to five visits per week) and continued financial contributions through 2007.
- Schwerdtfeger disputed the scope and continuity of Latham’s role after 2007, asserting fewer visits, no formal schedule, and cessation of financial support.
- By late 2009, Latham alleged Schwerdtfeger restricted and then terminated contact, prompting Latham to sue for custody and/or visitation based on in loco parentis.

## Issues

1. Whether a nonbiological, nonadoptive former same-sex partner has standing to seek custody and/or visitation under the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where the parties disputed material facts bearing on whether the plaintiff assumed parental obligations and whether custody/visitation should be considered.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice.
- The court held the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that in loco parentis did not apply and that Latham lacked standing.
- The court held genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Latham stood in loco parentis and whether custody and/or visitation should be granted.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
- Standing is a threshold jurisdictional requirement; a litigant must assert her own interests and have a sufficient personal stake in the controversy.
- In loco parentis exists when a person assumes the obligations incident to the parental relationship without formal adoption; the core inquiry is assumption of parental obligations.
- Whether a person assumed parental obligations for in loco parentis status is largely a question of fact and should not be inferred lightly.
- In loco parentis standing is not limited to biological or adoptive relationships; it may apply when a person functionally assumed a parental role.

## Conclusion

The court held that a former same-sex partner who offered evidence of having assumed parental obligations could have in loco parentis standing to pursue custody or visitation, and that disputed facts about the relationship and ongoing parenting role precluded summary judgment.


Latham v. Schwerdtfeger, 282 Neb. 121, 802 N.W.2d 66 (Neb. 2011)