One of the paths by which non-parents can acquire custody rights to a child bears the Latin appellation “in loco parentis.” The doctrine precedes statutes defining legal parenting rights, but we live in an age when the role of parenting is evolving quickly. 23 Pa.C.S. 5324(2).

When I was a kid, I was given a subscription to a magazine Highlights for Children which featured a cartoon called “Goofus & Gallant.” Goofus was the kid who did everything wrong. Gallant was the polite kid who always handled matters well.

Last year brought us Hale v. Hale 345 A.3d 1234 a case where a live-in partner sought in loco status based on a three-year relationship living with a father and his children. Breanna Miller is the “Gallant” of that case in the sense that Mr. and Mrs. Hale gave her full authority to act in the role of co-parent and she exercised that authority as if a parent. She played a major role in the child’s upbringing, taking part in medical and educational decisions, attending appointments, volunteering at school, contributing financially, and sharing daily parenting duties. When the relationship with Mr. Hale ended she sought to preserve her involvement and the Superior Court concurred even though formal “consent” was not obtained.

W.F. v. T.C. v. B.H. decided on September 23 is kind of the bookend to Hale. Here, an adult child of one of the parents sought visitation with two of his siblings. The record showed that for a period of roughly one year W.F. provided routine care services for the subject children. Before filing his petition to intervene he allowed what seems more than two years without seeing the kids. The Westmoreland County court denied the request finding that mere caregiving when one parent was away did not elevate the applicant to parent worthy status. There was no evidence that W.F. performed actual parenting duties beyond the care which most parents rely on today from paid third parties.

Lawyers and parties pursuing third party standing claims in custody would be wise to print these two cases and use them to assess the chances of prevailing with a Section 5324(2) based claim. The line between a win and a loss is not bright and judicial discretion is always a factor, but your facts need to be more Gallant than Goofus.

The case:  https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-S34002-26m%20-%20106934360375008115.pdf?cb=1