argues that the lower courts erred in finding that Mother established cause under Section 2901 to proceed with the anticipated adoption of Children by Grandfather despite the fact that Mother did not relinquish her parental rights. Specifically, Father emphasizes that the purpose of permitting the involuntary termination of a parent’s rights in the context of an adoption is to “protect the integrity and stability of the new family unit,” Appellant’s Brief at 10, which he maintains would not be achieved by the proposed adoption in the instant case because Grandfather would not b ccording to Father, both of those cases demonstrate that cohabitation is essential to forming a family unit and, thus, an adoption is not permitted where the parties will not be living together as an in (2001) (<HOLDING>). Relying on those cases, Father asserts that
holding that domestic partner who assumed a parental status over her partners child and performed parental duties with the partners permission stood in loco parentis to the child and had standing to seek partial custody and visitation holding that the requisites for in loco parentis status are the actual care and custody of a child by a nonparent who assumes parental duties because the parent  generally due to his or her absence  is unable or unwilling to care for the child recognizing the due process rights of legal guardians who had raised child for over eight years and stood in loco parentis to the child to be given a full and meaningful opportunity to be heard at a dependency hearing under chapter 1304 rcw holding that party standing in loco parentis has standing to seek custody of child holding that although samesex partner may have been able to prove her status as a de facto parent such status was not sufficient to establish parental rights to custody and visitation over the objection of the biological mother