## Facts

- David S. (biological father) and Raymond T. (David’s husband) and Samantha G. (biological mother) agreed before conception to conceive and raise a child together in a tri-parent arrangement.
- The parties planned conception via artificial insemination using sperm delivered by David and Raymond over an eight-day period; Samantha later became pregnant.
- Before birth, the parties publicly presented themselves as the child’s parents and jointly prepared for birth and childcare, including selecting and paying a midwife, attending childbirth classes, and planning parental leave.
- They agreed to make joint medical decisions, chose a pediatrician, arranged for the child to be covered under Raymond’s health insurance, and contributed to a joint savings account for the child (with Raymond contributing half the funds).
- The child was born in May 2017; Samantha was the biological mother and David the biological father; Raymond was not genetically related and had not adopted the child.
- After birth, the child primarily lived with Samantha, while David and Raymond exercised regular parenting time; all three adults referred to one another as the child’s parents.
- The relationship among the adults deteriorated, leading to competing custody and visitation requests.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Domestic Relations Law § 70(a), a nonbiological, nonadoptive spouse who participated in a clear preconception agreement to raise a child may have standing to seek custody and visitation.
2. Whether such standing may be recognized even when the child already has two legal parents.

## Decision

- The court held that Raymond had standing to seek custody and visitation under DRL § 70(a) based on the parties’ preconception agreement and conduct implementing a tri-parent plan.
- The court rejected a categorical rule that standing is unavailable whenever a child already has two legal parents.
- The court limited its ruling to the threshold question of standing and set the matter for a best-interests hearing on custody and visitation.

## Legal Principles

- Under DRL § 70(a), a nonbiological, nonadoptive individual may obtain standing to seek custody/visitation upon clear and convincing evidence of a preconception agreement to conceive and raise a child together and subsequent parental conduct consistent with that agreement.
- The best interests and welfare of the child guide interpretation of custody-standing rules, including in nontraditional family structures intentionally formed before conception.
- Dicta suggesting a strict two-parent limit does not bar recognizing third-party standing where both biological parents consented to and facilitated the third adult’s parental role from the outset.
- Standing is distinct from the merits; once standing is established, custody and visitation are determined at a best-interests hearing.

## Conclusion

The court recognized third-parent standing for the biological father’s spouse where all three adults intentionally created and implemented a preconception tri-parent family plan, and it directed that custody and visitation be resolved later under the child’s best interests.


Raymond T. v. Samantha G., 59 Misc. 3d 960 (Fam. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2018)