## Facts

- V. C. and M. J. B., a lesbian couple, began dating on July 4, 1993.
- Five days later, on July 9, 1993, M. J. B. began artificial insemination.
- M. J. B. gave birth to twins on September 29, 1994; V. C. took M. J. B. to the hospital and was present in the delivery room.
- In 1995, the couple bought a house together and held a commitment ceremony.
- During the relationship, M. J. B. gave V. C. medical power of attorney and listed her as the children’s “other mother” on daycare and pediatrician forms.
- M. J. B. referred to V. C. as a mother of the children and acknowledged that V. C. shared responsibility for their care.
- M. J. B. ended the relationship in August 1996.
- After the breakup, the parties alternated living in the shared home with the twins until V. C. moved out in December 1996.
- V. C. continued visiting the children every other weekend and contributed to expenses until May 1997.
- V. C. filed a complaint seeking joint legal custody and visitation, alleging equal parenting responsibility and participation in major decisions.
- M. J. B. opposed, asserting she alone made substantive decisions and that V. C. was a helper rather than a co-parent.
- The trial court denied V. C. both legal custody and visitation; V. C. appealed.

## Issues

1. When, if ever, may a non-biological, non-adoptive third party be recognized as a “psychological parent” with standing to seek custody or visitation over the objection of a fit legal parent?
2. What elements must be shown to establish psychological-parent status, and what constitutional limits apply in light of the legal parent’s liberty interest?
3. If psychological-parent status is established, should the dispute be decided under a best-interests standard with parity between adults, and does that require joint legal custody or only permit visitation?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey adopted a four-factor test for identifying a “psychological parent,” drawing from Wisconsin’s *In re Custody of H.S.H.–K.*
- Applying that test, the Court held V. C. qualified as a psychological parent based on M. J. B.’s knowing participation in creating V. C.’s parental role and the parties’ family life with the twins.
- Once psychological-parent status is proven, the psychological parent stands in parity with the legal parent for purposes of determining custody and visitation, and the controlling inquiry becomes the children’s best interests.
- The Court affirmed the denial of joint legal custody, reasoning that joint decision-making requires an ability to communicate and cooperate that was not present.
- The Court allowed visitation and remanded for entry of an appropriate visitation order consistent with the children’s best interests.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- A third party proves psychological-parent status by showing: (1) the legal parent consented to and encouraged the third party’s parent-like relationship with the child; (2) the child and third party lived together in the same household; (3) the third party undertook parental responsibilities for the child’s care, education, and development without expectation of compensation; and (4) the relationship lasted long enough to create a bonded, dependent relationship parental in nature.
- The first element—knowing consent and encouragement by the legal parent—functions as a key constitutional safeguard, because the legal parent participated in creating the relationship the third party later seeks to preserve.
- If psychological-parent status is established, the usual strong preference for a fit legal parent’s decision is not controlling; the court applies the best-interests-of-the-child standard with both adults treated as parents for that analysis.
- Psychological-parent status can support court-ordered visitation over a legal parent’s objection when visitation serves the child’s best interests.
- Psychological-parent status does not automatically entitle the third party to joint legal custody; joint legal custody depends on whether shared decision-making is workable and serves the child’s best interests in light of the adults’ relationship and level of conflict.

## Conclusion

In *V. C. v. M. J. B.*, the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted a four-part psychological-parent test and held that a non-biological former partner who meets that standard has standing and parental parity for best-interests review; applying that framework, the Court permitted visitation for V. C. but affirmed denial of joint legal custody because cooperative joint decision-making was not feasible, and it remanded for a visitation order consistent with the twins’ best interests.


V. C. v. M. J. B., 748 A.2d 539 (2000)