Two lesbians living in Kansas in a committed relationship decided to have children. The intent was for each one of them to be artificially inseminated by the same donor and bear a child, but one of them could not get pregnant. Therefore, the other partner had two children, and the women entered into an agreement which provided, among other things, that they would "jointly and equally share parental responsibility," and that in the event of a separation, "the person who has actual physical custody would take all steps necessary to maximize the other's visitation" with the children.
Well, as you might have already guessed, the two women broke up, and one of them (the biological mother) wanted to take a job in Texas and move there with the two children. The other parent sued in state court to enforce their agreement, which was contested by the biological parent, who argued that her constitutional rights as a parent were being violated, and that Kansas law has a "parental preference doctrine," so that the other parent could be nothing more than a "legal stranger" to the children. Furthermore, the biological mother argued that Kansas's Parentage Act "cannot be enforced to the extent that it allows anyone other than the biological mother to be treated as a natural mother".
The Kansas Supreme Court was asked to determine if the natural mother's rights were strong enough to override the agreement made by the two women when they were together.