That was really, really cringeworthy, listening to the lawyers bring up each couple's every "weakness" in some sort of game of, his anger issues mean he's more unfit (uh, that's not how that works), his hiring a nanny to take care of the baby means he's more unfit (what?). What's unfortunate about that is, this is really a legitimately difficult situation that I honestly don't know what I think is the right decision, and the lawyers being dicks about the opposing sides' supposed flaws (last I checked, being well-off enough to hire a nanny, and being poor enough to only live in a one-bedroom apartment, aren't actually commentaries on one's ability to be a parent), doesn't give us any depth as to the ethics of the situation, as well as either couple's legal right to custody.
No jury. Did we even see Marisa? Different flow and feel to this one. The not-bio dad's line about God not giving you more than you can handle caused me to guffaw because that's been called out big time in Christian circles (or at least my circles...) as utter crap and not biblical. Good try there, guys.
And finally, they played that ending like it was the Missouri Compromise, but I kept thinking that these couples barely know each other, and are agreeing to a very long time of being intricately involved in each other's lives without knowing anything about each others' parenting styles, convictions, religious leanings, life goals, etc. I know plenty of people end up in interesting custodial arrangements, but hopefully they've all had dinner together first.