(Helena, Montana) A Montana woman is asking the state Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that gave visitation and other parental rights to her former partner.

Earlier this week, District Judge Ed McLean ruled that Michelle Kulstad must be recognized as a co-parent to the two children she raised together with Barbara Maniaci. He granted Kulstad time with her children and ordered that Kulstad have joint decision-making authority for matters significantly affecting the children, including their “education, activities, health care and spiritual upbringing.”

Kulstad and Maniaci, both of the Missoula area, ended their relationship in 2006. Maniaci, as the “legally adoptive” parent claimed that Kulstad had no custodial rights to their children, that she should not be granted visitation rights, and that she was a “legal stranger” to the children.

The court rejected those arguments and ruled that it was in the best interest of the children for their parent-child relationship with Kulstad to continue, finding that Kulstad was a parent to the children and that the children had a constitutional right to have that relationship continue.

“To discriminate further against Ms. Kulstad because of her sexual preference in this day and age is no different than telling a person to go to the back of the bus because of her skin color,” District Judge Ed McLean wrote.

McLean noted in his 48-page ruling that Kulstad provided for the children and raised them with Maniaci, and the children recognized her as a parent.

Maniaci, who said she is no longer gay and is married argued through her lawyer that she is a “fit, natural parent,” and that she is being “prevented from raising her children with her husband in the way they see fit.”

Mancini is represented by the conservative Alliance Defense Fund which has a long history of fighting LGBT civil rights.

ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks claims the case has “absolutely nothing to do” with Kulstad’s sexuality.

“If Miss Kulstad was a man, we would still be in the case and making the same arguments,” he told The Associated Press. “Are we going to start granting ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends parental rights just because they lived under same roof? If so, how far do we go? Granting acquaintances and roommates parental rights over the objections of fit parents is a very dangerous precedent.”

Kulstad’s attorney, Susan Ridgeway, disputes Nimock’s assertion.

“She’s the second parent of these children; she’s not the fifth boyfriend of the parent,” she said of Kulstad’s relationship with Maniaci and the children.

The Montana Supreme Court has not indicated if it will hear the appeal.