As the makeup of the family changes, so too does the law. In a recent decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division, L.N. v. B.R, A-1141-23 (07/08.24),the Appellate Division reinstated grandparents’ claim that their granddaughter’s father was not entitled to custody or must share custody because the grandparents had become the “psychological parents” of their granddaughter. The child’s mother unexpectedly died during childbirth.
Normally, a natural parent’s rights overcome claims by third parties unless it can be shown that there was neglect and endangerment, purposeful physical harm, or exceptional circumstances. New Jersey courts have long recognized that being a psychological parent qualifies as an “exceptional circumstance.”
To establish psychological parenthood the court will apply a 4-part test: (1) the “biological parent consented to, and fostered, the petitioner’s formation and establishment of a parent-like relationship with the child”; (2) the “petitioner must show that the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household”; (3) the petitioner “must have assumed the obligations of parenthood by taking significant responsibility for the child’s care, education and development, without expectation of financial compensation…”; and (4) the petitioner “must have been in a parental role for a length of time that was sufficient to have created a bond with the child that was parental and dependent in nature.”
An application of the 4-part test above shows that, in this case, the grandparents had submitted sufficient evidence to meet that test, including: (1) their daughter and the child’s father lived with them while the daughter was pregnant; (2) the child’s father and the child continued to live with the grandparents for two years after the daughter tragically died in child birth; (3) in the two years since the child was born, the grandparents provided, without compensation, all of the things a parent would provide, including food, clothing, companionship, all-day and night care, and the type of guidance young children typically get from their parents. Moreover, the court noted that the child’s father worked full time and often spent nights out of the house once he found a girlfriend. After two years of the father’s intermittent relationship with the child, the child’s father attempted to assert his parental rights and take the child from the grandparents’ home. Based on this evidence, the Appellate Division ruled that the trial court acted prematurely in dismissing the grandparents’ lawsuit and that the grandparents raised a “credible claim of psychological parenthood.” This decision demonstrates that there is a growing awareness in society that grandparents play a central role in raising their grandchildren when compelled by extenuating circumstances. The courts are now defining the criteria necessary for the grandparents to overcome the historical and cultural presumptions that a child’s parents should continue to be the responsible parents in all circumstances.
