Hellcat
Registered
A Colorado state appeals court has ordered a lower court to re-examine a custody order that forbade a conservative Christian mother from indoctrinating her daughter with "homophobic" ideas. The controversial order was leveled at Cheryl Clark, a former lesbian who left her partner, Elsey McLeod, after she (Clark) converted to Christianity.
Issued by Judge John Coughlin of Denver, the earlier instruction caused an uproar in conservative circles. Although it's quite common for family court judges to enjoin one parent from denigrating the other, Judge Coughlin's phrasing, barring any "homophobic" influence in the daughter's religious teaching, was somewhat unusual. Cla
k's lawyers were able to argue that the order might forbid their client from reading certain passages of the Bible to her daughter, and otherwise interfere with her freedom of speech and religious expre
ssion.
Gay family advocates were focused from the start
on a different issue, the question of whether Elsey McLeod could be treated as a legal parent. Although Clark was the legal adopted mother of the girl, both women had raised their daughter from infancy to the age of six. Indeed, Judge Coughlin ruled that McLeod was a co-parent, with every right to seek joint custody.
Thursday's ruling by the state appellate court upheld that decision, leaving in place McLeod's joint custody and confirming her status as a psychological parent.
"We are extremely pleased that the Court of Appeals recognized the importance of protecting children's relationships with both of the people who have functioned as their parents," said Courtney Joslin of the National Center for Lesbian Ri
ghts. "It's outrageous that loving, devoted parents have to fight so hard for their right to even appear in court and ask for visitation with their own children."
According to the A
ssociated Press, Clark's lawyers plan to appeal that part of the ruling.
As for the restraints on
Clark's speech, the controversy seems to be a problem of semantics. Divorced parents who share custody are often ordered to refrain from depicting the co-parent in a bad light or attempting to estrange their children from their former partner. Clark could have been handed a standard admonishment along these lines, without any reference to "homophobia" per se.
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2004/07/02/2
Issued by Judge John Coughlin of Denver, the earlier instruction caused an uproar in conservative circles. Although it's quite common for family court judges to enjoin one parent from denigrating the other, Judge Coughlin's phrasing, barring any "homophobic" influence in the daughter's religious teaching, was somewhat unusual. Cla
k's lawyers were able to argue that the order might forbid their client from reading certain passages of the Bible to her daughter, and otherwise interfere with her freedom of speech and religious expre
ssion.
Gay family advocates were focused from the start
on a different issue, the question of whether Elsey McLeod could be treated as a legal parent. Although Clark was the legal adopted mother of the girl, both women had raised their daughter from infancy to the age of six. Indeed, Judge Coughlin ruled that McLeod was a co-parent, with every right to seek joint custody.
Thursday's ruling by the state appellate court upheld that decision, leaving in place McLeod's joint custody and confirming her status as a psychological parent.
"We are extremely pleased that the Court of Appeals recognized the importance of protecting children's relationships with both of the people who have functioned as their parents," said Courtney Joslin of the National Center for Lesbian Ri
ghts. "It's outrageous that loving, devoted parents have to fight so hard for their right to even appear in court and ask for visitation with their own children."
According to the A
ssociated Press, Clark's lawyers plan to appeal that part of the ruling.
As for the restraints on
Clark's speech, the controversy seems to be a problem of semantics. Divorced parents who share custody are often ordered to refrain from depicting the co-parent in a bad light or attempting to estrange their children from their former partner. Clark could have been handed a standard admonishment along these lines, without any reference to "homophobia" per se.
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2004/07/02/2