With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". limiting factor. See R.M., 565 Pa. at 628'30, 777 A.2d at 452'53 (Saylor, J., dissenting). 4 . As the Superior Court noted, courts in several states have cited in loco parentis and related doctrines (e.g., "de facto parent,” “psychological parent”) in granting standing to petition for child custody. See T.B. v. L.R.M., 753 A.2d 873, 884 n. 7 (Pa.Super.2000) (citing cases). Notably, however, most such decisions are grounded in legislative policy pronouncements. See, e.g., Rubano v. DiCenzo, 759 A.2d 959 (R.I.2000); V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200, 748 A.2d 539 (N.J.2000); Ellison v. Ramos, 130 N.C.App. 389, 502 S.E.2d 891 (1998); In re Custody of C.C.R.S., 892 P.2d 246 (Colo.1995); Bodwell v. Brooks, 141 N.H. 508, 686 A.2d 1179 (1996); cf. Geibe v. Geibe, 571 N.W.2d 774 (Minn.Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>); but see E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824, 711

A: recognizing but finding inapplicable pure question of law exception to doctrine of exhaustion
B: recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented
C: holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment on ground not presented by movant in writing
D: recognizing in loco parentis as statutory ground of visitation rights but finding it inapplicable on facts presented
D.