Corliss v. McLagin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reversing trial court’s determination that non-parents qualified as de facto custodians because they had been “co-parenting” and did not literally stand in the place of the mother despite their providing financial support and child care
• trial court erred in finding grandparents of child’s half-sibling to be child’s de facto custodians considering trial court’s findings of a co-parenting arrangement between them and mother
• “[0]ur law is clear that even if a nonparent provides care and/or financial support for a child, if such is in conjunction with a natural parent, the nonparent will not qualify as a de facto custodian.”
• “[O]ur law is clear that even if a nonparent provides care and/or financial support for a child, if such is in conjunction with a natural parent, the nonparent will not qualify as a de facto custodian.”
• “[O]ur law is clear that even if a nonparent provides care and/or financial support for a child, if -5- such is in conjunction with a natural parent, the nonparent will not qualify as a de facto custodian.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).