With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". over visitation with child conceived by one, according to agreement between them, through artificial insemination). Susan correctly notes that courts in other jurisdictions have applied the particular paternity presumption she asserts — the “holding out provision” — equally to mothers. See, e.g., Chatterjee v. King, 280 P.3d 283, 293 (N.M. 2012). We note that those jurisdictions had statutory provisions, more specific than ours, instructing that their paternity “presumptions are to be read in a gender-neutral manner insofar as practicable in an action to determine ... the existence of a mother and child relationship.” Frazier v. Goudschaal, 295 P.3d 542, 559 (Kan. 2013) (Biles, J., concurring in part) (quotation omitted); see Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 117 P.3d 660, 665 (Cal. 2005) (<HOLDING>); In re S.N.V., 284 P.3d 147, 151 (Colo. Ct.

A: holding biological father responsible under uniform parentage act for back child support notwithstanding stepparents support of child
B: holding that a mother and her two children failed to establish a  1983 claim where there was no evidence that threats made to the mother were directly aimed at the relationship between parent and child
C: holding that woman was presumed mother under uniform parentage acts upa provision presuming paternity based upon receiving the child into ones home and holding out child as ones own where upa expressly provides that in determining the existence of a mother and child relationship insofar as practicable the provisions of this part applicable to the father and child relationship apply quotation and brackets omitted
D: holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity
C.