Matthew W. Pitts v. Amanda M. Moore

JABAR, J.,

with whom SILVER, J., joins, concurring.

[¶ 42] I join with the Plurality Opinion, which takes substantial steps to clarify this unsettled area of law, and with its result. However, on one aspect of the Plurality’s analysis, I disagree with it, and, necessarily, with the Dissent.19 I do not join section 11(A)(2) of the Plurality Opinion, and I write separately because I do not believe that harm to the child is constitutionally required in order to obtain defacto-par-enthood status over a fit parent’s objection. See Troxel v. Granville, 580 U.S. 57, 73, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49…