With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 37.152(a)(3) of the education code, and that appellee is an educator, no statutory or common law authority supports the argument that an educator stands in loco parentis under the present circumstances. Here, appellee, student wrestlers, parents, and members of the Booster Club attended a party on a Saturday at a private residence. The party was not sponsored by Flower Mound High School, attendance by the student wrestlers was not mandatory, and many of the students’ parents attended. Even if appellee is an educator under these circumstances, he assumed neither actual care nor custody of the students because the party was not mandatory, and the students’ parents were not excluded from attending. See Coons-Andersen v. Andersen, 104 S.W.3d 630, 635-36 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, even if section 37.152(a)(3)

A: recognizing that nonparent standing turns on the quality of the relationship between the nonparent and the child
B: holding that party standing in loco parentis has standing to seek custody of child
C: 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
D: holding that grandmother in loco parentis of her three grandchildren had protected liberty interest in their future care and custody
C.