Subject: ACLU Plans Appeal of Bottoms Case

From: anonymous sender <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 12:17:39 EDT

RICHMOND, Va. (UPI) -- The American Civil Liberties Union said
Wednesday it will almost certainly appeal a decision by a Virginia
circuit court judge that took a 2-year-old son away from his lesbian
mother and her lover and placed him in the custody of a grandmother.

The circuit ruling partially was based on a 1985 Virginia Supreme Court
decision, Roe v. Roe, which held that homosexuality in itself is a
legitimate reason to deny a parent custody.

Henrico County Circuit Court Judge Buford Parsons ruled late Tuesday
that Sharon Bottoms' sexual orientation "is illegal and immoral and
renders her an unfit parent."

The ruling pitted Bottoms, 23, and her lover, April Wade, 37, against
Bottoms' mother, Kay, who was awarded custody of Sharon Bottom's son,
Tyler Doustou.

The decision upholds a juvenile court ruling, also based on the Virginia
high court's 1985 decision, that deemed Bottom's 41-year-old mother a
preferable custodian.

Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia affiliate of the ACLU,
said although a final decision has not yet been made, the challenge in
Virginia's Supreme Court probably will be two-fold. The first part will
challenge the 1985 Virginia Supreme Court decision itself.

"In Roe v. Roe," Willis said, "there was no research like we have now.
Almost all the research on the effects of gay parents on a child has
been done since then (1985)."

Willis said during the circuit court trial, the mother's attorney
presented expert witnesses who testified that the mother's sexual
orientation would not adversely affect the child. Willis said that
testimony was not challenged by the grandmother.

The second part of the appeal will challenge Parsons' ruling that taking
the boy away from his mother was in the child's best interests. Willis
said the trial included testimony that Sharon Bottoms "hugged and
kissed" her lesbian lover in front of her son, and that at one point the
boy had called the lesbian lover "Dada."

But Willis said "the dominant presumptive force" in deciding best
interests is almost always the link between a child and his or her
natural mother, and there has to be an overwhelmingly compelling reason
to break it.

He pointed out that Roe v. Roe dealt with two parents, a mother and a
father, whereas the Bottoms case deals with a mother and a grandparent.
Willis said "a grandparent has the same rights as a stranger in a
custody case."

Willis said the circuit ruling is the same as if a stranger "could point
to a house next door, and say I want this child, they are gay parents,
and therefore unfit."