The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and D began living together as a same sex couple. They decided to add a child and together artificially inseminated D with semen donated by a male friend. On May 10, 1995, D gave birth to a baby girl, L.B., and the partners began actively coparenting her, both taking a committed, active, and loving role in her nurturing and upbringing. L.B. referred to both as her mothers. When L.B. was six years old, P and D ended their relationship, and an acrimonious spate of litigation over access to L.B. ensued. P eventually filed a petition to establish parentage. The court found that P was a psychological parent and the UPA did not grant standing to 'psychological' parents. Visitation was declined. The trial court held that P lacked standing under the UPA and as a de facto parent and finally there must be a prerequisite showing of parental unfitness in order to grant visitation rights and that none had been shown. P appealed. The Court of Appeals relying on the persuasive authority of other state courts that have recognized the common law rights of de facto parents, held that a common law claim of de facto or psychological parentage exists in Washington separate and distinct from the parameters of the UPA and that such a claim is not an unconstitutional infringement on the parental rights of fit biological parents. D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.