THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 1, 1996 TAG: 9608300034
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: MARGARET EDDS
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: 74 lines
Walking out of a Henrico County courtroom three years ago, I remember thinking that 2-year-old Tyler Doustou had just been awarded to the most stable person in his life: his grandmother.
At least at that moment, it seemed to me, the court system had worked to Tyler's advantage. His young, sometimes irresponsible mother was no longer in control. An older, more consistent figure was.
Even so, the rationale behind the custody decision seemed blatantly discriminatory. If justice is supposed to be fair and equitable, this decision was all wrong.
As much of the western world now knows, the undoing of Tyler's mother, Sharon Bottoms, was her sexual orientation. She is a lesbian. In ruling against her, the judge condemned her ``immorality,'' as evidenced by her violation of a state law forbidding oral sex.
And he referenced her immaturity. A then 23-year-old high-school dropout and recent divorcee, Bottoms had not held a steady job, had moved frequently, and had occasionally hit her son hard.
There was testimony that those hits had not been outside the bounds of old-school parenting, however. An independent attorney in a court-ordered review had credited Bottoms' with deep love for her son, even as he recommended that grandmother Kay Bottoms gain custody.
Leaving the courtroom, I wondered which of the misdeeds cited by the judge had ensnared more Virginians: practicing the Class 6 felony of oral sex, which is forbidden for both homosexuals and heterosexuals, or being less mature than your parents. Either way, I figured, if those offenses were grounds for losing a child, there should be a lot of childless parents roaming the commonwealth.
Instead, there was one.
Three years later, Bottoms has just announced that she is giving up the custody fight that took her to the Virginia Court of Appeals (where she won) and the Virginia Supreme Court (where she did not).
There may or may not be something Solomon-like in her wisdom that this year-in, year-out tussle between mother and daughter can only have a bad effect on the primary object of their concern, Tyler.
But this much is certain. Away from the courtroom, Sharon Bottoms is doing what most young parents tend to do over time. She is growing up. If stability is a mark of maturity, then Bottoms is on her way. Her relationship with her partner, April Wade, has not wavered over the past three years. She has continued to live in the same apartment. And she is still working for Kmart.
In fact, there has been more transiency in her mother's life than in hers.
In another custody hearing earlier this year, an attorney appointed to guard Tyler's interests reached a different conclusion than the guardian ad litem appointed three years ago.
``There are negatives. She is still not as mature as I would like to see her,'' admitted Torrence Harman, who conducted extensive interviews and in-home visits with Sharon, her mother and others.
But, Harman said, she believes Tyler has his best shot at overcoming emerging educational and psychological problems with his mother. ``This child needs a lot of work, a lot of time, and a lot of energy, and a lot of attention to change this trajectory,'' she said.
``But I think my bottom line feeling and belief after all the work I've done in this case and hearing all the evidence is the child has a better shot at this with Sharon than with Kay.''
The judge disagreed. He awarded Sharon greater visitation rights, but left custody with the grandmother.
Along the way in this case, six judges - including three on the Virginia Court of Appeals and three on the state Supreme Court - have sided with Sharon Bottoms. Six others - including two lower court judges and four on the state Supreme Court - have ruled against her.
The even judicial split reflects society's ambivalence over homosexuality. But there should be no ambivalence over either fairness or the best interests of a child.
If those two are at odds, as they may have been when this case began, I can live with tilting toward the child. But when both point in the same direction, it is unforgivably misguided to let homophobia reign. MEMO: Ms. Edds is an editorial writer for The Virginian-Pilot. by CNB