Baltimore Judge Orders Visitation for Lesbian Co-Parent

Finding that “exceptional circumstances” had been established in the case of a lesbian co-parent seeking visitation with the child borne by her former partner during their relationship, Baltimore Circuit Judge Lawrence R. Daniels ruled on October 7 that Larissa S. should be granted visitation rights.  However, Judge Daniels denied visitation with the child’s younger sibling, conceived while the women were together but born after they had separated.

Daniels ruled from the bench and issued a brief, non-explanatory order, but the Maryland Daily Record, a legal newspaper, reported on October 7 that the decision may be the first of its kind in Maryland since the state’s highest court ruled in May that Maryland law does not recognize the doctrine of “de facto parent,” under which courts in some other states have recognized family ties between same-sex partners who raised children together to the extent of allowing co-parents to seek visitation after the parents have ended their relationship.

In this case, Larissa S. and Melissa B. were in a relationship when Melissa had sex with a man in order to become pregnant.  According to Larissa’s testimony, the two women discussed having and raising a child together and chose the man “because he shared Larissa’s Hispanic heritage,” reports the Daily Record.  Melissa, on the other hand, contended that having the child was her decision, not a joint decision.  The child was born in 2001, and Melissa became pregnant again, but by the time her second child was born in 2003, the women had ended their relationship.

Judge Daniels ruled after a 2006 trial that Larissa was a “de facto” parent of the child, based on evidence of her extensive parenting involvement and psychological bonding with the little boy.  However, at that time he denied visitation rights, finding that Larissa had no such relationship with the other child, and that visitation might damage the sibling relationship between the children.  On appeal, the intermediate appellate court affirmed Daniels’ ruling that Larissa was a de facto parent, but rejected the rationale for denying visitation rights with the older child.  However, that ruling became untenable when the state’s highest court ruled in May 2008 that the state does not recognize the de facto parent doctrine.

In that case, Janice M. v. Margaret K., the court insisted that only in “exceptional circumstances” could a court order that a biological parent allow an unrelated person to have visitation with her child.  The case was returned to Judge Daniels’ court to determine whether Larissa could qualify for visitation under this more demanding standard.

Daniels concluded that exceptional circumstances existed, but refrained from spelling those circumstances out in his written order.  According to the Daily Record account, Daniels stated at the hearing that he concluded that Larissa was involved with “all aspects of parenting,” including selecting the child’s name, feeding him and toilet training him.  The child referred to Larissa as “mommy.” 

He found that exceptional circumstances did not exist with the younger child, with home Larissa had only occasional contact. 

Daniels ordered that the older child receive “reunification therapy with the assistance of a mental health professional” before visitation can resume, and indicated he would appoint an “independent neutral health professional to conduct reunification therapy.” 

The Daily Record reported that Alyson D. Meiselman represents Larissa and Steven L. Tiedemann represents Melissa.  Tiedemann indicated that he would file an appeal and seek a stay of the visitation order.  Meiselman expressed regret to the Daily Record that visitation would not resume immediately, and that a stay would delay it further, prolonging the separation of her client from the child with whom she had formed a parental bond.