Conover v. Conover (2016): How Maryland Courts Redefined Parenthood at the Expense of Parents

In 2016, Maryland’s highest court handed down Conover v. Conover, a decision that upended custody law by recognizing “de facto parents.” At first glance, the ruling appeared to be a victory for inclusivity, especially for same-sex couples raising children together. But beneath the rhetoric of protecting children’s bonds, Conover set a precedent that many biological parents now see as a direct threat: their constitutional right to raise their own children without state intrusion.

---

The Four-Factor Test: From Caregiver to Parent

The Court in Conover declared:

“We hold that de facto parents have standing to contest custody or visitation and are not required to show parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances before a trial court can apply a best interests of the child analysis.”

The Court then adopted a four-factor test:

1. The biological/adoptive parent consented to and fostered the relationship.
2. The adult lived with the child.
3. The adult assumed parental responsibilities without expectation of compensation.
4. A parental bond was formed.

Once these factors are satisfied, the non-parent is elevated to equal legal footing with the biological parent. From that point forward, the biological parent’s rights no longer carry greater weight.

---

Constitutional Collision: Troxel v. Granville

The problem is that this framework directly collides with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel v. Granville (2000). In Troxel, the Court struck down a Washington law that allowed third parties to demand visitation over a parent’s objection. Justice O’Connor, writing for the plurality, declared:

“So long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family.”

The Court further held that parental decisions are entitled to “special weight” — a heightened constitutional protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

By contrast, Conover allows a court to strip that “special weight” the moment a non-parent satisfies the four-factor test. In effect, a fit parent’s rights under Troxel can be dissolved by judicial fiat, replaced by a “best interests” test that treats both parties as equals.

---

Why Parents Object

1. Parental Autonomy Undermined

Troxel recognized that parents have a fundamental liberty interest “far more precious than property rights.” Conover dilutes that by allowing the state to elevate a former partner or caregiver to parental status, forcing biological parents to share rights they never intended to surrender.

2. The Consent Loophole

The supposed safeguard — parental consent — is dangerously flexible. As critics point out, ordinary acts of trust (letting a partner read bedtime stories, take the child to the doctor, or attend school events) can later be reframed as “fostering a parental relationship.” In practice, courts have wide discretion to stretch this factor.

3. Weaponization in High-Conflict Cases

Far from protecting children, Conover has been weaponized. In Reichert v. Hornbeck, for example, critics argue that courts permitted a non-parent to assert parental rights even where true consent was questionable. What was billed as a child-centered doctrine became a tool for extended litigation and coercive leverage.

4. Erosion of Due Process

The heart of the criticism is constitutional: Conover effectively rewrites the balance struck in Troxel. Biological parents no longer receive deference as the primary custodians of their children. Instead, their rights are diluted the moment a court elevates a third party.

---

Maryland vs. Other States

• Virginia refuses to recognize de facto parents, requiring proof of parental unfitness or harm (Surles v. Mayer, 2012). This keeps biological parents’ Troxel rights intact.
• New Jersey, by contrast, adopted a broad “psychological parent” doctrine (V.C. v. M.J.B., 2000), allowing courts to prioritize child–caregiver bonds even against a parent’s wishes.
• Maryland tried to split the difference. But in practice, its “middle ground” has created uncertainty: courts can interpret consent loosely, stretching the doctrine beyond its supposed safeguards.

---

The Hidden Cost

Family courts already suffer from bias, inconsistency, and overloaded dockets. Conover injected yet another avenue of litigation. Biological parents now risk losing custody not just to the state or their ex, but to former partners, step-parents, or even relatives who convince a judge they meet the test.

As Justice Scalia warned in Troxel’s dissent (ironically defending parental rights from another angle):

“The right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the unalienable rights with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims all men…endowed by their Creator.”

Maryland’s judiciary, critics argue, ignored that warning.

---

Conclusion: Rights for Some, Risks for Others

On paper, Conover v. Conover was a progressive step meant to protect children’s bonds. In reality, it blurred the line between parent and non-parent, weakened constitutional protections, and fueled more high-conflict litigation.

By elevating functional caregivers into equal parents, Maryland courts have expanded custody rights for some — but at the cost of undermining the very foundation of parental autonomy guaranteed in Troxel.

For biological parents fighting for their children, Conover didn’t fix a broken system. It made the battlefield bigger.