THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 1, 1996 TAG: 9608300090
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E2 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: BY ANN G. SJOERDSMA
LENGTH: 89 lines
PAMELA KAY BOTTOMS filed for custody in March 1993 of her then-20-month-old grandson Tyler two months after her daughter Sharon told her that she no longer wanted Tyler living in Kay's household.
Around the same time, Sharon also disclosed her lesbianism.
This news so alienated Kay that she immediately disowned Sharon.
But before she could turn to the Henrico County juvenile court for help, Kay had a small detail to attend to: She had to oust Tommy Conley, her longtime live-in companion who had helped rear Sharon from childhood, but may have ``sexually abused her over 800 times'' - or so Sharon now claimed.
Kay, upset by her daughter's accusations, which she found ``not altogether unfounded,'' asked Conley to move out. As counsel advised.
After three years and three state court decisions, one of them favoring Sharon Bottoms, Bottoms v. Bottoms, a k a the Richmond lesbian-mother custody case, has finally ended. For now. Sharon, 26, recently gave up her fight for more lenient visitation. Kay, 45, has custody.
But there are no winners.
The Virginia court system could have eased this family conflict, perhaps lessened the trauma to this young child. But through ignorance and prejudice, it only contributed to the tragedy. To Tyler's pain.
It is the rare contested custody case in which both parties come with sterling characters, good parenting skills and the genuine best interests of the child at heart. More often each has deficits as a parent, and the acrimony between them spills over into protracted litigation that only harms children.
When the conflict is between mother and daughter, and the emotional wounds run deep, it can get ugly, as the Bottoms case proves.
But it need not be so. Indeed, the trial court, exercising its equity powers, can and should work to prevent it from being so. Where a family may lack compassion and farsightedness, a judge should not. For long after a case is closed, a family remains a family, a mother remains a mother.
The trial court ruled that Sharon Bottoms, because she is a lesbian, is per se unfit to be Tyler's mother.
Virginia law flatly doesn't permit such a summary conclusion. Sharon's sexual conduct must pose a ``substantial threat of harm'' to Tyler's ``emotional, psychological or physical well-being'' before she, the natural parent, can be deprived of custody. Evidence of such harm was lacking, or at least debatable.
But that didn't matter. Even with psychological evaluations that described Sharon as ``warm'' and ``responsive'' with Tyler and he as ``secure'' with her, the court awarded custody to Kay Bottoms. Why? The judge was repulsed by Sharon's lesbianism, which he condemned as ``illegal'' and ``immoral,'' and a future threat to Tyler.
He probably didn't much like Sharon, either.
With her live-in lover April Wade, 30, a recovering alcoholic who has come across as angry, profane and defensive, Sharon has hardly been a model of decorum or maturity. But unfit? It's a tough standard to prove. Mothers living in open adulterous relationships have retained custody in Virginia, and adultery is a crime.
The Virginia Court of Appeals rejected the trial court's ``per se'' judgment. But a year later, a divided Virginia Supreme Court overruled, issuing an opinion steeped in morality and exaggerated ``harm'' done to Tyler. (Sharon was severely rebuked for her cursing, for example.) The court paid little mind to opinions of psychological experts.
Kay Bottoms may not have the insight to understand how her daughter's upbringing influenced the woman she became, but judges should. Behavior is learned, and the parallels between the two women are striking.
Both mother and daughter dropped out of high school. (Tellingly, the Supreme Court says Sharon ``dropped out,'' whereas Kay ``did not complete her high school education.'') Both married, had a child and divorced young. Both have cohabitated with men to whom they weren't married. Both have had sporadic employment.
Both may have been abused by Tommy Conley.
The difference between them? Kay Bottoms is heterosexual; Sharon is not.
The Bottomses need counseling to rehabilitate their family relationships, not a defiant custody order that will only drive them farther apart. An order entered Aug. 21 restricts Sharon's visitation with Tyler and bans him from seeing the volatile Wade. It only infuriates.
Rather than punishing Sharon, the trial court should seek to help her, and thus help her son. Like her mother, Sharon may not be an ideal parent, but she can learn. At least she should be given the chance.
More important, Tyler, whose father has abandoned him, deserves a chance. Despite her flaws, despite her sexuality, Sharon Bottoms is and always will be his mother. Help her now, help him later. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma is a lawyer and book editor of The
Virginian-Pilot. ILLUSTRATION: Photo
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Lesbian Sharon Bottoms recently lost custody of her son to her
mother, Kay. by CNB