ROANOKE TIMES

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, June 23, 1994                   TAG: 9406240047
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium


ROUND TWO

THE VIRGINIA Court of Appeals has returned reason and put it in the place of prejudice in the case of Sharon Bottoms, the lesbian mother who had lost custody of her son in a lower court decision.

In the absence of any evidence that Bottoms' son, Tyler, was being harmed in any way, and in the face of evidence that he was, in fact, being loved and well-cared for, a Henrico County Circuit Court had taken him from his mother based solely on her homosexuality. It was a decision notably lacking in logic and judicial reasoning.

The three-judge appellate court thought so, too, ruling unanimously that Bottoms' lesbianism alone does not justify tearing a child from his mother and giving him to a nonparent, in this case Bottoms' own mother, Kay Bottoms.

The grandmother's lawyer has indicated she will appeal the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court, and that is unfortunate. Sharon Bottoms is to regain custody of Tyler in a couple of weeks, and it would be best if mother and son simply could get on with their lives at that point.

It was almost inevitable, though, that whoever lost at the appellate level would take a case this controversial and deeply felt to the commonwealth's highest court. There, the mother's right to raise her own child must be affirmed.

For what Kay Bottoms did in legally snatching her grandson was succeed temporarily in terminating a parent's right to her child not because any harm was being done to the boy, but because a grandmother did not approve of a mother's lifestyle.

Kay Bottoms' concern is not trivial. She deeply disapproves of a choice that many in society would find disturbing, if not repugnant. But prejudice aside, the evidence about the impact of a parent's sexual orientation on the development of a child indicates that it has no effect.

The Family Foundation was quick to decry Tuesday's ruling as a further erosion of the family. In fact, the decision was further protection for parents to live their own lives without fear they might lose their children simply because they do not conform to the larger society's ideas about how they should live.

If the courts are inclined to loosen the parent-child bond, let them concentrate on those parents who are physically and emotionally abusive, and leave well-functioning family units - conventional or not - alone.



 by CNB