Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court considered whether a nonbiological, nonadoptive partner of a child's legal parent could pursue a statutory parentage action. The Court affirmed dismissal as to the older child but held that allegations concerning the younger child were sufficient to survive dismissal because the parties allegedly mutually agreed to raise the child as equal co-parents and did so for many years.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the family division had jurisdiction over plaintiff's petition to establish parentage under Vermont's Parentage Act.
- Whether a nonbiological, nonadoptive, unmarried partner of a child's legal parent may assert parentage based on the parties' mutual intent and conduct in bringing the child into the family and raising the child together.
- Whether plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to survive dismissal as to the younger child, M.P., and the older child, G.P.
Holdings
- Dismissal was improper where the complaint alleged facts that, if true, could establish plaintiff's legal parentage; the court must accept the allegations as true and determine only whether it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff could prove no facts entitling her to relief.
- In a narrow class of cases, parental status may arise from the mutual agreement of a legally recognized parent and a putative second parent to bring a child into their family and raise the child together as equal co-parents, followed by conduct implementing that agreement, even without a biological or adoptive relationship between the putative parent and child and without marriage or civil union between the parents.
- Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to survive dismissal as to M.P. because she alleged that she and defendant jointly decided to bring M.P. into their family, mutually intended that plaintiff would co-parent, acted as equal parents, and raised M.P. together for years.
- Plaintiff's parentage claim concerning G.P. was properly dismissed because defendant adopted G.P. before the parties' relationship began and plaintiff did not allege that the adoption was a joint endeavor.
Key quotations
“the Court has rejected the broad theory of "de facto" parenthood advanced in Titchenal and necessary to support the putative father's claims in Moreau, but has in Miller-Jenkins embraced a far more targeted exception to its general understanding that parental status arises from biological connection to a child or a marriage or a civil union to a child's legally recognized parent at the time of the child's birth.” (567-568)
“the fundamental distinction between Moreau and Miller-Jenkins arises from the joint decision of the Miller-Jenkins parents to bring a child into their home in the first place and their joint conduct in doing so.” (568)
“These facts, if proven, could establish plaintiff's parentage claim.” (573)
Factual background
Plaintiff and defendant were domestic partners from 2003 to 2010 and jointly raised two children. Defendant had adopted the older child, G.P., before the relationship began; the parties jointly decided to bring the younger child, M.P., into their family through adoption, but defendant completed the adoption because the selected agency did not permit same-sex couples to adopt jointly. Plaintiff acted as a parent to both children, and after the parties separated they agreed to share custody equally, but defendant later disrupted plaintiff's contact with the children.
Procedural history
Sinnott filed a petition under Vermont's Parentage Act seeking recognition as the de facto and intended mother of two children adopted by her former domestic partner. The family division dismissed the petition, reasoning that Vermont law did not recognize parentage for a person lacking a biological or adoptive relationship to the child and lacking marriage or civil union with the child's legal parent. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed dismissal as to the older child, reversed dismissal as to the younger child, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Proceed with further proceedings on plaintiff's parentage claim concerning M.P. in accordance with the opinion; dismissal of the claim concerning G.P. remains affirmed.