The Complexities of Who is a Parent in Custody Matters

Two cases decided by the Superior Court on April 10 illustrate the challenges courts are facing in custody cases. The first case is Northampton County’s Hess v. Zapata. This is not a standing case but it shows how fast relationships between adults are evolving. The facts of Hess are mind boggling in their evolution. Our litigants form a relationship that produces a child in Northampton County but mother wants to move to Allegheny County and start a new relationship while father remains in Northampton. He also quickly starts his own new relationship in that county. Father consents to mother’s relocation but no one modifies the custody order to acknowledge that 400 miles separate mom’s house from dad’s. In comparison, mother’s western Pennsylvania situation shows some stability while father’s is charitably described as “promising.” The court is left to evaluate the best interests of a five year old in a world where there is no arrangement that can be characterized as “stable.” The ruling affirms primary custody to mother because it is the least “unstable” environment.

Then we have Westmoreland County’s Lyons v. Majercik and Harrison which is a dispute over when a non-parent has standing. We note the two cases because they highlight how non-parents develop into pseudo parents who may acquire standing to assert custody rights over children. Our reference to pseudo parents is not facetious. It is common for children to develop a strong bond with people their biological parents live with precisely because the step-parent or other person is a refuge from unrelenting conflict between the biological parents. And the Hess  case underscores the fact that a seven year old child may have only two biological parents but there are now two more potential parents from the new relationships

Majercik and Harrison had a child together in 2018. From July 2020 to May 2024 Harrison was in a relationship with Lyons. By the Fall 2020 Lyons lived with mother and child and provided care for the child as he was then unemployed. During 2023 mother was hospitalized for five weeks during which time the child was cared for by Mr. Lyons. Approximately two months after their relationship ended Lyons filed a custody action. Ms. Harrison objected that he had no standing. At an unspecified date before November 2024 the court held a hearing to adduce the facts. On November 1, the court dismissed the case for lack of standing by Mr. Lyons.

The appellate panel observes that where standing is in issue, the review of the case is de novo and not abuse of discretion.

We should note that the biological father was named as a party but did not participate in the case. Mother did not file a brief on appeal. These facts may have weighed on the Superior Court decision to reverse and send the matter on to a custody hearing. In doing so, the Court noted that the trial court employed the wrong standard in holding that to be in loco parentis required the party claiming that status to show the natural parent was not performing his/her reasonable duties. To the contrary, while intact families are typically shielded from third party custody claims:

“[T]hat presumption must give way where the child has established strong psychological bonds with a person who, although not a biological parent, has lived with the child and provided care, nurture, and affection, assuming in the child’s eye a stature like that of a parent. Where such a relationship is shown, our courts recognize that the child’s best interest requires that the third party be granted standing so as to have the opportunity to litigate fully the issue of whether that relationship should be maintained even over a natural parent’s objections.” T.B. v. L.R.M., 786 A.2d 913, 917 (Pa. 2001)

The Court also observed the holding in A.C. v. E.K., 2025 Pa. Super, 31 that third party requests for visits or partial custody may be given greater defference  where the T.B. v. R.L.M. standard of involvement is met. J-A27006-24o – 106270480299646558.pdf.

We don’t see a bright line test here, but it seems clear that where an adult is resident with a child for a lengthy period of time and is called upon or steps forward to provide support typically associated with the role of parent, in loco parentis standing under 23 Pa.C.S.5324 is likely to attach. This seems all the more likely in a world where the biological or adoptive parent is not competing to provide the same kind of support. Here the reverse order and remand to the trial court is to assess whether the services provided or involvement by Mr. Lyons were sufficient to clear the parentis hurdle.

The takeaway. Younger people are moving through relationships with what seems increasing speed and many don’t seem to be concerned that a relationship is stable before bringing on the children. As they move forward, there will be more custody litigation over who is or is not in loco parentis and just about every one of those cases may require a full evidentiary hearing on “whether” that hurdle has been cleared before we can move on to what custody arrangements are best.