Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Carvin v. Britaingreen2 sentences2021L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 712 (footnote and citations omitted); see also In re Custody of B.M.H., 179 Wn.2d 224, 241 , 315 P.3d 470 (2013) (“The de facto parentage doctrine incorporates constitutionally required deference to parents by requiring that the biological or legal parent consent to and foster the parent-like relationship.”). 2016DE FACTO PARENTAGE Washington common law first recognized the de facto parentage doctrine in 2005 in In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wn.2d 679, 708 , 122 P.3d 161 (2005). | 6 | 12 |
In Re Parentage of LBgreen2 sentences2016DE FACTO PARENTAGE Washington common law first recognized the de facto parentage doctrine in 2005 in In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wn.2d 679, 708 , 122 P.3d 161 (2005). 2013At the conclusion of trial, the court granted the de facto parentage petition. ¶21 After engaging in “a strict statutory inquiry,” the court ruled that although the de facto parentage doctrine applies only in narrow circumstances, the evidence established that “those circumstances are present in this case.” The court ruled, in pertinent part: This case falls within the analysis of [In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wn.2d 679 , 122 P.3d 161 (2005)], not [In re Parentage of M.F., 168 Wn.2d 528 , 228 P.3d 1270 (2010)]. | 3 | 7 |
Corbin v. Reimengreen2 sentences2013At the conclusion of trial, the court granted the de facto parentage petition. ¶21 After engaging in “a strict statutory inquiry,” the court ruled that although the de facto parentage doctrine applies only in narrow circumstances, the evidence established that “those circumstances are present in this case.” The court ruled, in pertinent part: This case falls within the analysis of [In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wn.2d 679 , 122 P.3d 161 (2005)], not [In re Parentage of M.F., 168 Wn.2d 528 , 228 P.3d 1270 (2010)]. 2013The factors outlined in L.B. are relevant only if this court first decides that the de facto parentage doctrine applies to the circumstances presented in this case.” M.F., 168 Wn.2d at 534 . ¶56 M.F. dictates that a stepparent is not entitled to bring a custody action under a de facto parent theory, and this result necessarily follows from Allen and Shields. ¶57 The sole recourse for Michael is a third party custody action under chapter 26.10 RCW, and he in fact brings a petition under this chapter. | 2 | 7 |
Holt v. Holtgreen2 sentences2021L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 712 (footnote and citations omitted); see also In re Custody of B.M.H., 179 Wn.2d 224, 241 , 315 P.3d 470 (2013) (“The de facto parentage doctrine incorporates constitutionally required deference to parents by requiring that the biological or legal parent consent to and foster the parent-like relationship.”). 2021L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 712 (footnote and citations omitted); see also In re Custody of B.M.H., 179 Wn.2d 224, 241 , 315 P.3d 470 (2013) (“The de facto parentage doctrine incorporates constitutionally required deference to parents by requiring that the biological or legal parent consent to and foster the parent-like relationship.”). | 1 | 1 |
King v. Snohomish Countygreen1 sentence2013See M.F., 168 Wn.2d at 531 (citing King v. Snohomish County, 146 Wn.2d 420, 423-24 , 47 P.3d 563 (2002)). ¶32 De facto parentage is a flexible, equitable remedy that complements legislative enactments where parent-child relationships arise in ways that are not contemplated in the statutory scheme. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Snohomish Countygreen1 sentence2013See M.F., 168 Wn.2d at 531 (citing King v. Snohomish County, 146 Wn.2d 420, 423-24 , 47 P.3d 563 (2002)). ¶32 De facto parentage is a flexible, equitable remedy that complements legislative enactments where parent-child relationships arise in ways that are not contemplated in the statutory scheme. | 1 | 1 |
Appel v. Appelgreen1 sentence2011Accordingly, in our view, M.F. does not preclude MH from asserting a de facto parentage claim. ¶31 LH asserts that MH cannot be a de facto parent because he had three statutory remedies available to him “to establish a legal relationship with [BMH]”: (1) non-parental custody under chapter 26.10 RCW; (2) nonparental visitation under RCW 26.09.240, invalidated by In re Parentage of C.A.M.A., 154 Wn.2d 52, 66, 69 , 109 R3d 405 (2005); and (3) adoption. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Parentage of Mf
green
2 sentences2013At the conclusion of trial, the court granted the de facto parentage petition. ¶21 After engaging in “a strict statutory inquiry,” the court ruled that although the de facto parentage doctrine applies only in narrow circumstances, the evidence established that “those circumstances are present in this case.” The court ruled, in pertinent part: This case falls within the analysis of [In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wn.2d 679 , 122 P.3d 161 (2005)], not [In re Parentage of M.F., 168 Wn.2d 528 , 228 P.3d 1270 (2010)]. 2011M.F., 168 Wash.2d at 534 , 228 P.3d 1270 . ¶ 23 Turning to the issues presented herein, the correct starting point is not whether the de facto parent test has been met but, rather, whether that test is applicable here; the de facto parentage test is relevant only if we first decide that the de facto parentage doctrine applies to the circumstances presented in this case. | 3 | 2011–2013 |
Cew v. Dew
green
2 sentences2014In 2005, Washington adopted the doctrine of de facto parentage. “[A] de facto parent stands in legal parity with an otherwise legal parent” and is “ ‘limited to those adults who have fully and completely undertaken a permanent, unequivocal, committed, and responsible parental role in the child’s life.’ ” L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 708 (quoting C.E.W. v. D.E.W., 2004 ME 43 , 845 A.2d 1146, 1152 ). 2014In 2005, Washington adopted the doctrine of de facto parentage. “[A] de facto parent stands in legal parity with an otherwise legal parent” and is “ ‘limited to those adults who have fully and completely undertaken a permanent, unequivocal, committed, and responsible parental role in the child’s life.’ ” L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 708 (quoting C.E.W. v. D.E.W., 2004 ME 43 , 845 A.2d 1146, 1152 ). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Custody of HSHK
green
2 sentences2013Because there was no statutory means by which the former partner could establish her parental status, we adopted the de facto parentage doctrine established by the Wisconsin courts. !d. at 702-07 (citing In re Custody ofH.S.H-K., 193 Wis. 2d 649 , 533 N.W.2d 419 (1995)). 2013Because there was no statutory means by which the former partner could establish her parental status, we adopted the de facto parentage doctrine established by the Wisconsin courts. !d. at 702-07 (citing In re Custody ofH.S.H-K., 193 Wis. 2d 649 , 533 N.W.2d 419 (1995)). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Bushnell
neutral
1 sentence2020Specifically, where a statute is ambiguous, and “in the absence of an indication from the Legislature of an intention to overrule the common law, new legislation will be presumed consistent with prior judicial decisions.” State v. Bushnell, 38 Wn. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
York v. Shows-Re
green
1 sentence2020Id. (citing L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 684-85 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Fulton v. Miller
green
1 sentence2016And in In re Custody of M.J.M., 173 Wn. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Custody of Eatw
green
1 sentence2013Adequate Cause on Third Party Custody Petition ¶22 Under chapter 26.10 RCW, a third party can petition for child custody, but the State cannot interfere with the liberty interest of parents in the custody of their children unless a parent is unfit or custody with a parent would result in “actual detriment to the child’s growth and development.” In re Custody of E.A.T.W., 168 Wn.2d 335, 338 , 227 P.3d 1284 (2010); In re Custody of Shields, 157 Wn.2d 126,142-43 , 136 P.3d 117 (2006). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Custody of Shields
green
1 sentence2013Adequate Cause on Third Party Custody Petition ¶22 Under chapter 26.10 RCW, a third party can petition for child custody, but the State cannot interfere with the liberty interest of parents in the custody of their children unless a parent is unfit or custody with a parent would result in “actual detriment to the child’s growth and development.” In re Custody of E.A.T.W., 168 Wn.2d 335, 338 , 227 P.3d 1284 (2010); In re Custody of Shields, 157 Wn.2d 126,142-43 , 136 P.3d 117 (2006). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Grieco v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2013Adequate Cause on Third Party Custody Petition ¶22 Under chapter 26.10 RCW, a third party can petition for child custody, but the State cannot interfere with the liberty interest of parents in the custody of their children unless a parent is unfit or custody with a parent would result in “actual detriment to the child’s growth and development.” In re Custody of E.A.T.W., 168 Wn.2d 335, 338 , 227 P.3d 1284 (2010); In re Custody of Shields, 157 Wn.2d 126,142-43 , 136 P.3d 117 (2006). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Shields v. Harwood
green
1 sentence2013Adequate Cause on Third Party Custody Petition ¶22 Under chapter 26.10 RCW, a third party can petition for child custody, but the State cannot interfere with the liberty interest of parents in the custody of their children unless a parent is unfit or custody with a parent would result in “actual detriment to the child’s growth and development.” In re Custody of E.A.T.W., 168 Wn.2d 335, 338 , 227 P.3d 1284 (2010); In re Custody of Shields, 157 Wn.2d 126,142-43 , 136 P.3d 117 (2006). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Saintcalle
red
2 sentences2013State v. Saintcalle, 178 Wn.2d 34, 66 , 309 P.3d 326 (2013) (Stephens, J., concurring) (“Obviously it is not our role to legislate.”), petition for cert, filed, No. 13-7134 (Oct. 25, 2013). 2013State v. Saintcalle, 178 Wn.2d 34, 66 , 309 P.3d 326 (2013) (Stephens, J., concurring) (“Obviously it is not our role to legislate.”), petition for cert, filed, No. 13-7134 (Oct. 25, 2013). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Western Community Bank v. Helmer
green
2 sentences2011Cmty. Bank v. Helmer, 48 Wash.App. 694 , 740 P.2d 359 (1987) (reversing an award of attorney fees granted in an action dividing the property of a meretricious relationship because the award was based on the attorney fee provision contained within the dissolution statute, which was inapplicable). ¶ 58 However, Franklin brought a nonparental custody action in addition to a de facto parentage claim. 2011Cmty. Bank v. Helmer, 48 Wash.App. 694 , 740 P.2d 359 (1987) (reversing an award of attorney fees granted in an action dividing the property of a meretricious relationship because the award was based on the attorney fee provision contained within the dissolution statute, which was inapplicable). ¶ 58 However, Franklin brought a nonparental custody action in addition to a de facto parentage claim. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bernot v. Morrison
green
2 sentences2011The court explained that until the time that the legislature chooses to act, it is the duty of the court to “ ‘endeavor to administer justice according to the promptings of reason and common sense.’ ”L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 707 (quoting Bernot v. Morrison, 81 Wash. 538, 544 , 143 P. 104 (1914)). ¶19 The court then set forth the elements that a party claiming de facto parent status must establish: (1) the natural or legal parent consented to and fostered the parent-like relationship; (2) the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household; (3) the petitioner assumed obligations of pare 2011The court explained that until the time that the legislature chooses to act, it is the duty of the court to “ ‘endeavor to administer justice according to the promptings of reason and common sense.’ ”L.B., 155 Wn.2d at 707 (quoting Bernot v. Morrison, 81 Wash. 538, 544 , 143 P. 104 (1914)). ¶19 The court then set forth the elements that a party claiming de facto parent status must establish: (1) the natural or legal parent consented to and fostered the parent-like relationship; (2) the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household; (3) the petitioner assumed obligations of pare | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.