Background
Q.R. and D.K. were in a romantic relationship when they jointly planned Q.R.’s pregnancy through artificial insemination. D.K. participated in selecting the sperm donor, attended appointments, was present for the child’s birth, and became involved in the child’s care. Although D.K. maintained a District of Columbia apartment, she regularly stayed at Q.R.’s Maryland home during the child’s first months, contributed to daycare and household expenses, cared for the child, and was identified as a parent at daycare and medical appointments.
After the relationship ended, D.K. filed for custody, claiming de facto-parent status. The Circuit Court for Charles County found that D.K. met all four requirements under Conover v. Conover, declared her a de facto parent, and awarded Q.R. physical and legal custody with visitation for D.K. Q.R. appealed, challenging the shared-household finding and the denial of a continuance after she asked her counsel to withdraw shortly before trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed. It held that maintaining a separate residence does not, by itself, prevent a putative de facto parent from satisfying Conover’s requirement that the adult and child lived together in the same household. The inquiry instead turns on the actual contours of the household from the child’s perspective and on whether the adult functioned as a psychological parent within the family.
The record supported the circuit court’s finding that D.K. met that requirement. D.K. stayed at Q.R.’s home on most nights during the child’s first seven months, slept with Q.R. and the child, commuted to work from the home, kept belongings there, performed household and childcare tasks, and continued co-parenting after the romantic relationship deteriorated. The court also upheld denial of Q.R.’s continuance request because Q.R. had requested and consented to her attorney’s withdrawal, knew trial was approaching, and later had counsel for closing argument.
Key Takeaways
- A separate residence is not a per se bar to satisfying the shared-household element of Maryland’s de facto-parent test.
- The shared-household inquiry focuses on the child’s lived experience and the adult’s integration into the family household.
- A litigant who requests counsel’s withdrawal generally cannot treat that withdrawal as an unforeseen circumstance requiring a continuance.
Why It Matters
The decision supplies Maryland’s first appellate guidance on Conover’s shared-household prong where the putative de facto parent maintained another home. Courts must assess the family’s practical living arrangement, rather than impose a categorical single-residence rule.
It also reinforces the narrow but fact-dependent nature of de facto parenthood: parental consent, sustained caregiving, and a child-centered household relationship remain essential before a third party receives parental standing.