
                         THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
                 Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, June 23, 1994                    TAG: 9406230004 
SECTION: FRONT                     PAGE: A12    EDITION: FINAL   
SOURCE: Medium 
DATELINE: 940623                                 LENGTH:

VIRGINIA COURT SIDES WITH LESBIAN MOTHER\

{LEAD} A three-judge panel of the Virginia Court of Appeals acknowledged that Sharon Lynn Bottoms had not been an ideal mother when it ruled this week that a Henrico Circuit judge had wrongly denied her custody of her son, Tyler Doustou, who will be age 3 on July 5, because she lives with another lesbian and has engaged in oral sodomy, contrary to Virginia law.

The court noted that Ms. Bottoms, 24, had moved frequently, had often been jobless, had left her son with his grandmother, Kay Bottoms, 43, for extended periods, had twice spanked him hard enough to bruise him and made him stand in a corner. It noted that she and her lover, April Wade, 27, had touched each other affectionately in his presence.

{REST} Nonetheless, the three-judge panel did not find the 24-year-old Ms. Bottoms to have abused or neglected her son.

It firmly held, in a decision praised by gay and lesbian advocates, that ``the fact that a mother is a lesbian and has engaged in illegal sexual acts does not alone justify taking custody of a child from her and awarding the child to a non-parent'' - in this instance, Tyler Doustou'sgrandmother.

The Court of Appeals' ruling was denounced by Kay Bottom's attorney, who called it a ``tragedy as far as the boy Tyler is concerned to put him back in that environment'' and ``another demonstration of the general breakdown in morality in this state and in this country.''

The Family Research Council, which champions families, said: ``A child needs a male role model and a female role model'' A lesbian partner cast in the ``male role,'' she said, would not provide the proper model for the boy Tyler.

The legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Sharon Bottoms, said ``Virginia has finally gotten around to falling into line with many other states that have made these decisions.''

The director of public policy for the National Center for Lesbian Rights said: ``The court's decision follows what is logical in this particular case and most lesbian custody cases, and that is the unrefuted evidence that sexual orientation does not make a parent unfit.''

The last word in Bottoms vs. Bottoms, a flashpoint in the passionate equal-rights-for-gays-and-lesbians debate, has yet to be heard. Kay Bottoms seems certain to seek review of the Court of Appeals ruling.

Meanwhile, few could disagree with the appellate-court's propositions, rooted deeply in Western jurisprudence, legislation and experience, that:

``A child's natural and legal right to the care and support of a parent and the parent's right to custody and companionship of the child should only be disrupted if there are compelling reasons to do so.''

``Even when the parental level of care may be marginally satisfactory, courts may not take custody of a child from his or her parents simply because a third party may be willing and able to provide better care for the child.''

``A court will not remove a child from the custody of a parent, based on proof that the parent is engaged in private, illegal sexual conduct or conduct considered by some to be deviant, in the absence of proof that such behavior or activity poses a substantial threat of harm to a child's emotional, psychological, or physical well-being.''

The best interests of the child balanced against parental rights govern judging in custody disputes. Is a homosexual household invariably an unhealthy setting in which to rear children? The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in a 1985 case, Roe vs. Roe, declared life in a homosexual household to be ``intolerable burden'' for a child. That decision denied custody of a 9-year-old girl to her father, a homosexual living with his lover, and awarded it to the mother.

But the Court of Appeals said the Henrico Circuit Court judge had misapplied Roe vs. Roe in the Bottoms contrroversy, which pits a grandmother against the natural parent.

Life is messy, and many parents - heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual - are poor parents. But courts are rightly reluctant to separate children from their natural parents absent ``compelling reason'' to do so.

That restraint protects families and children more often than not. Those who would back grandmother Kay Bottoms' claim to Ryler against mother Sharon Bottoms' would do well to reflect on the consequences for society if custody of children of less-than-ideal natural parents - whatever their sexual orientation and unorthodox living arrangements - were awarded to third parties without demonstrably good cause.

by CNB