Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
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) ; but see E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824, 711
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing in loco parentis as statutory ground of visitation rights but finding it inapplicable on facts presented
B. recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented
C. recognizing but finding inapplicable pure question of law exception to doctrine of exhaustion
D. holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment on ground not presented by movant in writing
E. recognizing availability of in pari delicto doctrine as defense to registration violation but finding it inapplicable to facts of the case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.