The following facts were established at trial. V.C. and M.J.B., who are lesbians, met in 1992 and began dating on July 4, 1993. On July 9, 1993, M.J.B. went to see a fertility specialist to begin artificial insemination procedures.... According to M.J.B., she made the final decision to become pregnant independently and before beginning her relationship with V.C. Between November 1993 and February 1994, M.J.B. underwent several insemination procedures. V.C. attended at least two of those sessions. In December 1993, V.C. moved into M.J.B.'s apartment. Two months later, on February 7, 1994, the doctor informed M.J.B. that she was pregnant. ... Eventually, M.J.B. was informed that she was having twins. During M.J.B.'s pregnancy, both M.J.B. and V.C. prepared for the birth of the twins by attending pre-natal and Lamaze classes. The children were born on September 29, 1994. V.C. took M.J.B. to the hospital and she was present in the delivery room at the birth of the children. At the hospital, the nurses and staff treated V.C. as if she were a mother. The parties opened joint bank accounts for their household expenses, and prepared wills, powers of attorney, and named each other as the beneficiary for their respective life insurance policies. At some point, the parties also opened savings accounts for the children, and named V.C. as custodian for one account and M.J.B. as custodian for the other. The parties also decided to have the children call M.J.B. "Mommy" and V.C. "Meema." M.J.B. conceded that she referred to V.C. as a "mother" of the children. In addition, M.J.B. supported the notion, both publicly and privately, that during the twenty-three months after the children were born, the parties and the children functioned as a family unit. M.J.B. agreed that both parties cared for the children but insisted that she made substantive decisions regarding their lives.... V.C. countered that she was equally involved in all decision-making regarding the children. M.J.B. acknowledged that V.C. assumed substantial responsibility for the children, but maintained that V.C. was a mere helper and not a coparent. However, according to V.C., she acted as a co-parent to the children and had equal parenting responsibility.....

Questions:

1. Why did M.J.B. argue that the court lacked jurisdiction to resolve the custody/visitation dispute between the parties?
2. On what basis did the court determine that it had jurisdiction over the dispute?
3. What was the essence of M.J.B.'s argument with respect to the rights of V.C.? How did she characterize V.C.?
4. According to the court, what is a "psychological" or "de facto" parent?
5. What is the four-pronged test for determining whether a party is a psychological/de facto parent? Why is the cooperation of the legal parent so important in determining whether a party qualifies as a de facto parent?
6. Why, according to the court, does a finding that a party is a de facto parent not interfere with the privacy / parental rights of the legal parent?
7. What is the status of a party once she or he is determined to be a psychological/de facto parent? What standard is to be used in resolving custody and visitation disputes?
8. Why does the court decide that where all factors are equal, custody should be awarded to the "legal" parent over the de facto parent? Is this consistent with the discussion regarding the legal status of the de facto parent?