SCHNEDLER v. LEE, 445 P.3d 238

Lori Schnedler (non‑biological partner) and Heather Lee (biological mother) cohabited and intentionally planned for a child; Heather gave birth to J.L. in 2007 via a sperm donor, Kevin Platt.
Lori parented J.L. for eight years: provided financial support, daily care, and a parental relationship; J.L. called Lori “Momma Lori.”
The couple separated in 2015; Heather stopped Lori’s visitation after several months of agreed exchanges.
Lori sued in Tulsa County District Court seeking custody, visitation, and support under the in loco parentis doctrine; Heather moved to join Kevin and contested Lori’s standing.
The trial court (relying on Ramey) and the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed Lori for lack of standing, reasoning the donor’s consent was required; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court reversed: it held Ramey was misinterpreted, established a three‑factor test for standing of non‑biological same‑sex co‑parents, and declared parity with biological parents once standing is shown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lori (non‑biological same‑sex partner) has standing to seek custody/visitation under in loco parentis / parentage	Lori: She engaged in intentional family planning, co‑parented, lived with and held out J.L.; thus she has standing and should be treated like a parent	Heather/Kevin: Trial court said Ramey requires the genetic donor’s consent/acquiescence; without donor consent Lori lacks standing	Court: Ramey’s third prong requires acquiescence by the same‑sex partner (Heather), not the donor; Lori meets Ramey and has standing under a clarified test
What test governs standing and scope of rights for non‑biological same‑sex co‑parents	Lori: Standing should permit full adjudication of custody/visitation/support on equal terms with biological parents	Heather/Kevin: Limit standing to in loco parentis (temporary status) and don't grant parity absent donor consent or statutory direction	Court: Adopts a three‑factor preponderance test (intentional family planning; parental role producing meaningful emotional bond; cohabitation/holding out) and holds that once standing is shown, the non‑biological parent has parity with biological parents and courts must adjudicate rights based on the child’s best interests

Ramey v. Sutton, 362 P.3d 217 (Okla. 2015) (established in loco parentis test for non‑biological same‑sex co‑parents)
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (constitutional recognition of same‑sex marriage informing equal treatment of families)
Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014) (held Oklahoma’s same‑sex marriage ban unconstitutional in federal court context)
Rowe v. Rowe, 218 P.3d 887 (Okla. 2009) (best‑interests‑of‑the‑child as paramount custody principle)
Ex parte Yahola, 71 P.2d 968 (Okla. 1937) (court supervision of custody is equitable in nature)