psychological parent

What does custody of children by an extended family member look like in Florida? An “extended family member” may ask the court for “temporary” or “concurrent” custody of a child. Does Florida give rights to “psychological parents?” Custody of a child is “temporary” if the award excludes the parents. It’s “concurrent” if the extended family member shares custody with the parents.  1. Custody of Children by an Extended family member includes “fictive kin.” A “fictive kin” is someone “unrelated by birth, marriage, or adoption who has an emotionally significant relationship, which possesses the characteristics of a family relationship, to a child.”   Under Florida law, someone with no relationship to the child by birth, marriage, or adoption can request temporary or concurrent custody.  Florida values permanency and stability for children. The “fictive kin” concept shows up in the dependency context.  For example, Florida expanded the purposes and intent of Chapter 39 – PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO CHILDREN to include: To ensure that, when reunification or adoption is not possible, the child will be prepared for alternative permanency goals or placements, to include, but not be limited to, long-term foster care, independent living, custody to a relative on a permanent basis with or without legal guardianship, or custody to a foster parent or legal custodian on a permanent basis with or without legal guardianship. Permanency for a child who is transitioning from foster care to independent living includes naturally occurring, lifelong, kin-like connections between the child and a supportive adult. Section 39.001(1)(j), Florida Statutes (effective July 1, 2024). See Laws of Florida, Ch. 2024-70. 2. The Court may impose “best interest” provisions and a transition plan A court may order provisions the petitioner requests when it grants temporary or concurrent custody to a child’s extended family member. Such provisions must be related to the best interest of the child. They may include a reasonable transition plan for returning custody back to the child’s parent or parents. A judge may order concurrent custody only if the parents don’t object. The judge may order temporary custody only if the parents don’t object or are unfit. Expansion of Judge’s Power to Control Custody of Children by an Extended Family Member A judge may keep a concurrent custody order in place after a parent objects. Likewise, the judge may keep a temporary custody order in place after the parents become fit.  That means a court may maintain these orders beyond a parent’s objection or fitness. What’s the rationale supporting this expanded power? The judge may allow time to ensure compliance with a transition plan or other provisions of the order “related to” the best interest of the child. So, how might the judge do that? The judge may impose “reasonable conditions” related to the child’s best interests. Reasonable Conditions Related to the Child’s Best Interests Suppose the court found a child’s parent was unfit and had ordered temporary custody with an extended family member. The court finds the time with the extended family member was “significant.”  The court may establish “reasonable conditions” in the child’s best interest for transitioning the child back to the child’s parents. In determining such reasonable conditions, the court must consider: How long the child lived or resided with the extended family member. The child’s developmental stage. Time reasonably needed to complete the transition. Constitutionality of Florida’s Expansion of “Extended Family Member” to Include “Fictive Kin” Forcing a parent to allow a nonparent to see the parent’s child, following temporary or concurrent custody, “might be” unconstitutional. See analysis by the Florida Judiciary Committee Staff (December 11, 2019). Nonparents who can ask the court for temporary or concurrent child custody include “fictive kin.” But what does “fictive kin” mean? What nonparent third parties can qualify? Fictive Kin The amended statute pulls in the definition of “fictive kin” from Florida’s dependency statute. For custody of children by an extended family member, “fictive kin” means a person unrelated by birth, marriage, or adoption who has an emotionally significant relationship to a child. This relationship must possess the characteristics of a family relationship. Section 39.01(2), Florida Statutes. See also In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, 345 So. 3d 729 (Fla. 2022) (adding the phrase “fictive kin or nonrelatives” throughout Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.305).  A Google Scholar search (through January 29, 2026) of “fictive kin” yields no reported contested appellate decision in Florida in which the phrase appears.  Nonparents – Emotional Relationships – Custody Disputes in Non-Chapter 751 Proceedings As discussed later, multiple Florida courts have rejected nonparents’ claims that their significant emotional relationships to children entitled them to rights superior to parents’ privacy right to raise their children free from interference. These cases didn’t involve temporary or concurrent custody under Chapter 751, Florida Statutes. Parents’ Fundamental Privacy Right to Raise Children Free from Interference, Absent Threatened Significant Harm Parents in Florida have a fundamental constitutional right of privacy to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of their children without third parties interfering. Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution. To overcome this right, there must be clear and convincing evidence the parent abandoned the child or is unfit or that placing the child with the parent will be detrimental to the child. See Malkin v. Pla, 346 So. 3d 1230 (Fa. 3d DCA  2022) (summarizing decisions). Judge Thomas Logue on Privacy Rights Analyzing the amendments to Chapter 751, the Florida Judiciary Committee Staff cited Judge Logue’s summary of these parental privacy rights: Florida’s constitutional right to privacy recognizes the zone of autonomy around a nuclear family into which a judge, legislator, or official, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot go. This zone protects “the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” D.M.T. v. T.M.H., 129 So. 3d 320, 336 (Fla. 2013) (citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972)). The only exception occurs if one of the members of the family is at risk of significant harm. In this regard, the