Foust v. Montez-Torres

• Decision Date: 26 February 2015
• Docket Number: No. CV–14–192,CV–14–192
• Citation: 2015 Ark. 66,456 S.W.3d 736
• Parties: Jessica Foust, Appellant v. Maria Montez–Torres, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2015 Ark. 66

456 S.W.3d 736

Jessica Foust, Appellant

v.Maria Montez–Torres, Appellee

No. CV–14–192

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered February 26, 2015

Robertson Law Firm, PLLC, by: Robert “Chris” Oswalt, Benton, and Bonnie Robertson, Little Rock, for appellant.

Robert S. Tschiemer, Mayflower, for appellee.

Opinion

COURTNEY HUDSON GOODSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Jessica Foust appeals an order entered by the Jackson County Circuit Court denying her request for visitation with M.F., the minor child of appellee Maria Montez–Torres. For reversal, Foust argues that the circuit court erred in finding that she stood in loco parentis to M.F. for only the first three years of the child's life rather than for the entirety of it and in finding that it was not in M.F.'s best interest to have visitation with her. We affirm because at the time Foust filed her complaint for custody and visitation, she lacked standing to bring the action.

In 1994, Jessica Foust and Maria Montez–Torres began a romantic relationship. They lived together as a family unit with Montez–Torres's two biological children. In 2005, Montez–Torres had a brief relationship with a man and conceived a child, M.F., who was born in 2006. Foust and Montez–Torres ended their relationship in 2009. Following their separation, Montez–Torres and M.F. moved out of the home, and the parties established a schedule allowing Foust to visit M.F. However, in February 2013, Montez–Torres ended this arrangement. On March 27, 2013, Foust filed a complaint in the Jackson County Circuit Court seeking custody, or in the alternative, visitation with the child.

At the hearing on her complaint, Foust testified that she had been present for M.F.'s birth and had lived in the home with the child from that time until the parties' separation in 2009. Additionally, Foust testified that Montez–Torres gave the child Foust's last name. Montez–Torres also testified during the hearing. She stated that, following their separation, she learned that Foust was exposing M.F. to Foust's romantic partners during visitation times. Montez–Torres testified that she became concerned about this and voiced her objection to Foust. Yet, Foust continued to host her romantic partners overnight during visitation with M.F.

Eventually, Foust began a romantic relationship with Christy Eddington. Sometime afterward, Eddington and Montez–Torres exchanged name-calling, both in person and via text messages. As a result, Montez–Torres expressed to Foust that she did not want M.F. to be around Eddington. Nonetheless, Foust proceeded to have visitation with M.F. on a night when Eddington was also at her home. Montez–Torres discovered that Eddington was at the house and called Foust at approximately 4:30 in the morning. Foust acknowledged that Eddington was there and claimed that they were watching movies in the bedroom. Foust also admitted that M.F. was sleeping in the same room. Montez–Torres then traveled to Foust's house and retrieved M.F. After that incident, Montez–Torres declined to allow Foust to have further visitation with M.F.

Montez–Torres testified that despite her request that Foust not contact M.F., Foust continued to do so. For instance, Foust and Eddington approached M.F. and her babysitter while shopping, and Foust attempted to embrace and talk to M.F. despite the babysitter's admonitions. Foust also sent flowers to M.F. at school on her birthday with a card indicating the flowers were from Foust and Eddington. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court found that Foust stood in loco parentis to M.F. for the first three years of M.F.'s life but that it was not in M.F.'s best interest to continue visitation with her. Foust filed a timely notice of appeal from that order.

For her first point on appeal, Foust claims that the circuit court erred in finding that she stood in loco parentis to M.F. for only the first three years, rather than the entirely, of the child's life. This court has traditionally reviewed matters that sound in equity de novo on the record with respect to fact questions and legal questions. Daniel v. Spivey, 2012 Ark. 39, 386 S.W.3d 424. We will not reverse a finding made by the circuit court unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. We have further stated that a circuit court's finding is clearly erroneous when, despite supporting evidence in the record, the appellate court viewing all of the evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. We give due deference to the superior position of the circuit court to view and judge the credibility of the witnesses. Hunt v. Perry, 357 Ark. 224, 162 S.W.3d 891 (2004). This deference to the circuit court is even greater in cases involving child custody or visitation, as a heavier burden is placed on the circuit court to utilize to the fullest extent its powers of perception in evaluating the witnesses, their testimony, and the best interest of the children.Alphin v. Alphin, 364 Ark. 332, 219 S.W.3d 160 (2005).

Foust argues that the circuit court erred in finding that she did not stand in loco parentis for M.F.'s entire life because Montez–Torres could not unilaterally terminate Foust's parental relationship with M.F. The circuit court's conclusion that Foust did not stand in loco parentis to M.F. for the child's whole life is not clearly erroneous.¹ We have held that the in loco parentis relationship “may be abrogated at will by either the person assuming the parental duties or the child. Thus, the relationship is a temporary one, unlike that of adoption.” Babb v. Matlock, 340 Ark. 263, 267, 9 S.W.3d 508, 510 (2000). Moreover, we have squarely held that the in loco parentis relationship terminates once the surrogate parent “has established his home at another place, and indicated his purpose thereby to no longer treat them as part of his family.” Kempson v. Goss, 69 Ark. 451, 64 S.W. 224 (1901). We have held that the in loco parentis status requires a nonparent to “fully put himself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming all the obligations incident to the parental relationship” and to actually discharge those obligations, a standard which cannot be met where the nonparent and child have not lived in the same house for over three years. Daniel v. Spivey, 2012 Ark. 39 at 6, 386 S.W.3d at 428. Foust's argument also ignores that Montez–Torres, by virtue of her status as M.F.'s natural parent, has a fundamental right to direct and control the upbringing of M.F. Indeed, “the interests of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children ... is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65–66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000).

Additionally, we have held that a party standing in loco parentis may terminate the relationship and any corresponding duty of support for the child. Kempson, 69 Ark. 451, 64 S.W. 224. It would be an anomaly, indeed, for a nonparent to have the ability to unilaterally sever the in loco parentis relationship without affording the natural parent the same right. Thus, in our view, the natural parent must also be permitted to terminate the relationship at will, lest the law improperly prioritize the rights of the nonparent above that of the natural parent. As the Utah Supreme Court has explained, “Such an inequitable result, which would prioritize the rights of the surrogate parent over the needs of the child, demonstrates that the in loco parentis doctrine does not contemplate a perpetual grant of rights and is, in fact, ill-suited to convey such rights.” Jones v. Barlow, 154 P.3d 808, 814 (Utah 2007). In short, because Foust had not lived with the child for over three years, Foust could not stand in loco parentis to M.F. Accordingly, the circuit court did not clearly err in holding that Foust was not in loco parentis for the entirety of M.F.'s life.

Having concluded that Foust did not stand in loco parentis to M.F., we need not reach her contention that the circuit court erred in finding that permitting visitation with her was not in the child's best interest. Before the circuit court, Montez–Torres argued that Foust lacked standing to bring this action because she was not acting in loco parentis at the time she filed the complaint.² We agree that, because Foust did not stand in loco parentis when she filed her action, she did not have standing to seek visitation with the child.

Other states considering this issue have held similarly. For example, in Jones v. Barlow, supra, which we previously cited, the Utah Supreme Court examined a case where a nonparent sought visitation with a child under the doctrine of in loco parentis. There, as here, the natural parent moved with the child to a separate residence following the end of the parties' relationship. Eventually, the natural parent ended all contact between the nonparent and the child, and the nonparent petitioned for visitation. The Utah Supreme Court held that the nonparent lacked standing to bring her action because she did not stand in loco parentis to the child when the natural parent had moved to another residence and refused to allow the nonparent to interact with the child. Accordingly, the Utah court held, “The common law doctrine of in loco parentis does not convey perpetual rights that survive the termination of the parent-like relationship.” Jones v. Barlow, 154 P.3d at 819.

The Texas Court of Appeals has agreed that a nonparent lacks standing to pursue a cause of action for custody or visitation where the nonparent no longer resides with the child and is only exercising visitation. Coons–Andersen v. Andersen, 104 S.W.3d 630 (Tex.App. 2003). In Coons–Anderson, the parties lived together as romantic partners. During that time, Anderson conceived a child through artificial insemination. After the parties separated, Anderson moved out of the residence with the child but allowed Coons–Anderson to continue to have periodic...