Parents have a basic constitutional and legal right to raise their children as they see fit. This includes the right to deny visitation by third parties, including relatives. But a Maryland court may grant third-party visitation rights over a parent’s objection if that parent is either found to be “unfit” or “exceptional circumstances” exist.

A recent decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Best v. Fraser, illustrates how courts deal with these types of cases. Here, the aunt and uncle of a minor child petitioned for visitation rights over the objections of the biological father. The aunt and uncle said their request was primarily motivated by a desire to give the child access to his half-brother, who was under their care.

To back up and provide some additional background, the child was born to unmarried parents who initially lived together. After the parents ended their relationship, the child and his half-brother–who had a different father–continued living with the mother. The mother passed away in 2018, at which time the aunt and uncle–the mother’s brother and his wife–moved into her home to continue caring for both children. Sometime later, the child moved in with his father.

The aunt and uncle initially filed a petition seeking custody of the child. The father opposed. The aunt and uncle later withdrew that request but in the alternative requested court-ordered visitation with the child. A circuit court judge concluded that while the father was a “fit parent,” he nevertheless found it was in the child’s best interest for him to have access to his aunt, uncle, and half-brother.

The father appealed that decision. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the father that the circuit court committed legal error in awarding visitation rights. In the absence of any finding of parental unfitness, as was the case here, the circuit court needed to show there were “exceptional circumstances” that justified overruling the father’s wishes regarding third-party visitation. This finding must precede any consideration of the child’s “best interests.” But in this case, the circuit court skipped the “exceptional findings” step and moved directly to a best-interest analysis. That was a mistake, the Court of Special Appeals held. The appellate court therefore returned the case to the circuit court with instructions to conduct a proper analysis.

The Court further advised that if the purpose of the circuit court’s order was to facilitate contact between the child and his half-brother, the judicial system may not have jurisdiction to grant such a request. The half-brother is now an emancipated adult–i.e., he has reached the age of 18–so the aunt and uncle may no longer be able to establish jurisdiction to sustain their visitation petition.

Contact Charles County Family Law Attorney Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.