Source: http://www.childrenslegalrightsjournal.com/childrenslegalrightsjournal/fall_2013?pg=39
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:06:58+00:00

Document:
161 In re Adoption of Ta’Niya C., 8 A.3d 745, 754 n.13 (Md. 2010) (noting that when it comes to “custody (and visitation) disputes,” neither parent “has any preference over the other” and making a distinction between a parent and a third party, stating “there is a legal preference” and that “we have recognized that parents have a fundamental, Constitutionally-based right to raise their children free from undue and unwarranted interference on the part of the State, including its courts”); McDermott v. Dougherty, 869 A.2d 751, 770 (Md. 2005) (“In a situation in which both parents seek custody, each parent proceeds in possession . . . of a constitutionally-protected fundamental parental right. Neither parent has a superior claim to the exercise of this right to provide ‘care, custody, and control’ of the children. Effectively, then, each fit parent’s constitutional right neutralizes the other parent’s constitutional right . . . .”); see also Rico v. Rodriguez, 120 P.3d 812, 817 (Nev. 2005) (“In a custody dispute between two fit parents, the fundamental constitutional right to the care and custody of the children is equal.”).
162 A.G.R. ex rel. Conflenti v. Huff, 815 N.E.2d 120, 125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (finding the custodial parent enjoys the right to determine the religious training of the child as long as the custodial parent does not use it as a means to interfere with the noncustodial parent’s parenting time and there is no showing of substantial harm affecting the child’s physical health or emotional development); see also Hamilton, 270 P.3d at 1027 (holding that the non-custodial parent retains the right to discipline his child for conduct that occurs while under the supervision of the non-custodial parent); Baldwin v. Baldwin, 710 A.2d 610, 616 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) (Brosky, J., dissenting) (stating that the non-custodial parent has an interest in sharing in the rearing and love of the child).
163 See, e.g., Fridley v. Fridley, 748 N.E.2d 939, 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001); Shade v. Wright, 805 N. W.2d 1, 4-5 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
164 Brennan & Noggle, supra note 3, at 13.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.