In this non-dissolution matter, W.M., a putative psychological parent, appeals from two orders directing her to return a teenage minor to the physical custody of his biological mother, D.G. We conclude the trial court did not fully examine plaintiff’s claim she was a psychological parent, and applied the wrong factors for determining whether such parentage existed. Also, the court should have appointed counsel for the child, then seventeen years old, and converted the otherwise summary matter to the complex track. Therefore, we reverse.
In 2017, with his mother's consent, the minor started living with W.M. However, in late 2019, D.G. demanded that her son return home. Based on limited testimony elicited during summary proceedings, the trial court directed the teenager, then almost seventeen years old, to return home over his objection. He stayed at his mother's home one night but refused to remain there. W.M. filed an emergent application, seeking to be designated as the minor's psychological parent, asking that he be returned to her custody, and that the minor's volunteer attorney be permitted to participate in the proceedings. The trial court denied W.M.'s application without a plenary hearing, denied W.M.’s request for the teenager’s attorney to participate in the proceedings, and did not reach the paramount issue of the minor’s best interests.
After staying the trial court’s orders pending appeal and granting the minor’s attorney the right to appear on his behalf, the appellate court reversed. Although the teenager will be eighteen soon, the court also outlined appropriate factors for trial courts to consider when handling a complex FD custody matter. The court concludes the trial court did not fully examine plaintiff’s claim she was a psychological parent, and applied the wrong factors for determining whether such parentage existed. Also, the court should have appointed counsel for the child, then seventeen years old, and converted the otherwise summary matter to the complex track.