The Montana Supreme Court, in a 6-1 opinion issued today, held that the non-biological parent in a same-sex relationship can be found to have a “parental interest in the minor children.”
The case, Kulstad v. Maniaci (pdf), contains a striking concurring opinion from Judge James C. Nelson, who notes:
Maniaci and her defense team attempt to avoid the one issue that makes this case uniquely important—the elephant in the room: whether homosexuals in an intimate domestic relationship each have the right to parent the children they mutually agree that one party will adopt (or, presumably, conceive). The District Court and this Court have properly answered that question in the affirmative based on the facts of this case and on the statutory scheme discussed. I agree with the District Court’s decision, and I concur with this Court’s decision.
It is a great day for equality in Montana.
Important to note that the Alliance Defense Fund was arguing, albeit unsuccessfully, against the recognition of the non-biological parent.
Popularity: 11% [?]

I don’t think the most important parts of JUSTICE Nelson’s concurring opinion are quoted in the article.
Apologies to the justice. Thanks for the snark.
It’s the “non-legal” parent, not “non-biological.” One of the two women legally adopted the child, while the other did not. Both women raised the child for 3 years.
Could be relevant to other states that don’t let gay couples adopt, but do let them adopt as single parent.