Solomon's Harlots

I'll only give you a teaser about what led me to look this story up: I was amused when I noticed two of my texts had the word "check" in different contexts, and the word was in the same place on the screen.

This story can be found in 1 Kings 3:16, ff

The rundown is that two women living in the same house had sons within 3 days of each other. One night, while only the two of them were in the house, the one rolled over on her baby in the night and switched it out with the living one. The true mother of the living one awoke to a dead child that she knew was not hers. To settle the dispute, they took it to the king. His suggestion was to cut the child in half and the two women could share it. (I'd venture it was made satirically because in the previous verses he was promised he would have a wise and understanding heart.) The biological mother cries out, "No, no! Let her have the child."

This woman would rather see another woman raise him up than to see him split in two, for she knew the division would be the death of him. So Solomon gives the child to the biological mother and they all live happily ever after.

Let's look again. Verses 26 and 27 are where the final arguments and verdict are.

26 Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.
27 Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof.
Following the rules of modern grammar, the antecedent for the "her" in verse 27 is actually "the other" woman. But, King Solomon was blessed to have a wise and understanding heart. He wanted to judge fairly and justly in his kingdom, and had been promised by the Lord (in a dream) that he would be blessed with that ability. So would he not be able to divine which was the biological mother? Anyone with an ounce of wisdom or understanding could see by the reactions who cared for the child's life the most, as a biological mother would.
But does that mean Solomon gave custody to her? Could he not have also given custody to the mother who had lost her child? Perhaps the mother of the dead child would have struck vengeance upon the biological mother. She was stricken with grief and had already displayed her lack of reasoning and integrity when she not only kidnapped the baby, but supported the dividing of the him. Perhaps Solomon knew that the biological mother would be able to handle the grief of losing the opportunity to raise a child better than the one already stricken with grief.
But that doesn't seem fair. The biological mother shouldn't be asked to give up her son to a woman who had already rolled over one child; would she do the same with this one? That woman had her chance and lost it; does she really deserve another, and at the cost of someone else? The biological mother had, in essence, given up custody voluntarily when she said, "Let her have the living child." Would Solomon be obligated to honor such a request and therefore have given the child to the grief-stricken mother?
As usual, I have more questions than answers. And, really, what difference does it make to me and my life which of these women actually received the opportunity to raise the boy-child into a man? Does knowing the answer to this question motivate me to make the changes necessary in my life to reserve a seat in the celestial kingdom?
Not really. It's just something to think about.