Source: http://www.childrenslegalrightsjournal.com/childrenslegalrightsjournal/fall_2013?pg=73
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:26:56+00:00

Document:
123 See generally Lauren Valastro, Comment, Training Wheels Needed: Balancing the Parental Presumption, the Best Interest Standard, and the Need to Protect Children, 44 TEX. TECH. L. REV. 503 (2012) (discussing the psychological parent doctrine in Texas and nationwide).
124 See e.g., FLA. STAT. ANN. § 39.01(49) (West 2013); MICH. CT. R. § 3.903(A)(19) (“Party” includes the petitioner, child, respondent and parent, guardian, or legal custodian); MICH. CT. R. § 3.920; NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. § 432B.080 (West 2011); N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT. §§ 614, 616, 617, 624, 1046(b)( ii) (McKinney 2013); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 101.024(a) (West 2013) (“‘Parent’ means the mother, a man presumed to be the father, a man legally determined to be the father, a man who has been adjudicated to be the father by a court of competent jurisdiction, a man who has acknowledged his paternity under applicable law, or an adoptive mother or father.”); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 48.02(13) (West 2013).

References: § 39
 § 3
 § 3
 § 432
 § 101
 § 48