Legal Opinion

Fulton v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 28, 2013No. 67748-9-IPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchindler, J.

¶1 — The biological parents of M.J.M., Frank Miller and Meghan Cotton, contend the trial court erred in considering the petition of the acknowledged father to establish parentage as a de facto parent, designating Russ Fulton as a de facto father of M.J.M., and entering a parenting plan that allows Fulton visitation rights. Miller and Cotton claim that because the parentage statute, former Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), chapter 26.26 RCW (2002), expressly addressed the remedy available to an acknowledged father, the common law de facto parentage doctrine did not apply. We disagree. The…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District v. DickieWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Hisle v. Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 2004

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re The Detention Of B.m.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2019
  2. Christy M. Mckinley v. Benjamin S. PorterCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
  3. In the Matter of the Dependency Of: K.D.M.S.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API