Barnes, J.
Summary
Amy Brown appeals the trial court’s order granting visitation with Brown’s daughter, S.B., to Adrian Lunsford, Brown’s former boyfriend, who is unrelated to S.B. We reverse.
….
In A.C. v N.J., this court, for the first time, held that a same-sex partner, who was not the child’s biological parent, had standing to seek visitation with the child. A.C., 1 N.E.3d at 697.
This case asks us to determine whether Lunsford, who dated Brown and lived with Brown and S.B. from the time S.B. was sixteen months old until she was four years old, had standing to seek third-party visitation with S.B. when she was eight-and-one-half years old. Like A.C., we acknowledge that custodial and parental relationships may exist with third parties other than stepparents and former same-sex partners. Id. However, in light of the very limited circumstances in which this court and our supreme court have allowed a third party to request visitation, we do not believe we may conclude Lunsford had standing to request visitation with S.B. in this case.
….
A.C. is inapplicable to this case for two reasons. First, A.C. itself states that its holding is limited to that case’s “particular factual circumstances.” Id. at 697. Second, this court authored A.C. during a time when “the status of the law surrounding a lesbian partner’s right, if any, to enjoy the rights of a legal parent of a child born to her partner” was “uncertain.” Id. at 692. We explained in that case that the General Assembly had not offered any guidance on the legal questions surrounding such a circumstance, and “welcome[d] a legislative roadmap to help navigate the novel legal landscape in which we have arrived.” Id. “Until that happens,” A.C. explained, “we must do the best we can to resolve the issues that come before us.” Id. This court’s opinion in A.C. was one such effort. And, now, same-sex partners may marry, which was impossible in Indiana when A.C. was decided. See Obergefell v. Hodges, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). In light of the unique factual circumstances and particular legal landscape (which, since Obergefell is now altogether different) in which A.C. was decided, we do not believe we can fairly extend its holding or rationale to this case. The cases are apples and oranges.
….
Conclusion
Brown has waived her contentions that the trial court erred when it adjudicated this matter pursuant to the UCCJA. Brown also waived her claim that Lunsford failed to join S.B. as a necessary party to this action. Nonetheless, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered visitation between S.B. and Lunsford. We reverse.
Reversed. Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur,