seek relief outside of statutory mechanisms. Lundgren, 94 Wn.2d at 95. See also Kaur, 11 Wn. App. 362 (recognizing statutory methods to obtaining child support from a parent are not exclusive). The Allen court recognized that in the context of family law “(¡judges are sometimes asked to exercise Solomonic wisdom in these matters.” Allen, 28 Wn. App. at 639 (citations omitted). We recognize that not all jurisdictions have recognized a de facto parent in similar situations. See, e.g., In re Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (court declined to find either statutory or common-law de facto parentage claim for same-sex partner of biological mother who had been involved in child’s conception and upbringing); Nancy S. v. Michele G., 228 Cal. App. 3d 831, 279 Cal. Rptr. 212 (1991) (<HOLDING>). We find the cases from jurisdictions that do
holding that a de facto parents rights do not infringe on the fundamental liberty interests of the other legal parent in a family unit because de facto status can be achieved only through the active encouragement of the biological or adoptive parent by affirmatively establishing a family unit with the de facto parent and child or children that accompany the family holding that psychological parent was not entitled to custody or visitation holding that the status exception extends to termination proceedings because the tjermination of parental rights is nothing more than a determination of the legal status between the natural parent and the child 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 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