CLINTON ST. QUARTERLY Oregon Child Custody Case GAY RIGHTS COME HOME By Carlin Chrisman Not long ago Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Harlow Lenon granted a recently divorced mother of five custody of three of her children. What is unusual about Judge Lenon’s decision is that the mother, Joan Brown (not her real name) is a lesbian who makes no secret about her sexual preference. The concept of what will be “ in the best interest of the child” is the legal standard used to determine which parent will have custody in most divorce cases, but gay men and women have long suspected that decisions about parental fitness rest more on prejudice against homosexuality when the sexual orientation of the parents is known. Judge Lenon’s decision is therefore considered to be a victory for lesbians and for the gay community in general. Like other lesbian mothers who undergo custody fights for their children, Joan Brown discovered that the burden of proof was on her to show that lesbianism would not detrimentally affect her ability to be a parent. In the courtroom, whe was asked openly about her sexuality and about her feelings towards her lover and children, often in an insinuating or antagonistic manner. However, Joan and her lover Sandy Echland (also not a real name) did not back away from the questioning. On the cont r a ry , they open ly p resen ted themselves as lesbians in a relationship with each other — the first time this has been done successfully in an Oregon custody case — and asserted that their relationship would not adversely affect their ability to raise Joan’s children. Their victory came with the able help of attorney Katherine English of the Community Law Project and in the face of what English and Joan Brown believed to be homophobic feelings of the presidingjudge. Joan says she realized when she was a teenager that she was attracted to women, but that it was not something she could deal with at that time. “ I kept running from my feelings, ignoring and denying them, and ended up getting married,” she says. “ Years later I realized that it was not something I could hide from, and that I was so much happier accepting myself and my feelings.” She asked her husband for a divorce and told him that she was a lesbian, “ but he kept saying that it was okay, as long as there was still a place in my life for him, and he didn’t want a divorce.” Two years ago she met Sandy, and after a few months they began living together. Joan’s husband was in California with the Air Force reserves, and once more Joan wrote to him asking for a divorce. She and Sandy wanted to be parents to the children, and they were able to obtain temporary custody of them because Joan showed that she had been steadily employed and had supported the children for years. Joan believes that finding a sympathetic lawyer, and one who had had experience with lesbian custody cases, was a key to her gaining permanent custody. English was recommended to Joan by a friend, and she found the lawyer eager to take her case. Personal loans and pledges gave Joan the first thousand dollars she needed for a retainer, and now the legal bills — which amount to about $2,560 — are being paid with contributions from the Lesbian Mother’s Defense Fund and from local lesbians (see box). A second important factor in her successful fight, Joan says, was that she did not leave her children. She points to the case of Barbara Smith (not her real name), the first woman in an Oregon custody case to openly acknowledge her lesbianism, who was not successful. Barbara and her husband had been separated for a year, during which time she was supporting the children and her husband was not living in Oregon. When he returned to Portland, he insisted that he had the right to take the children for the summer, and Barbara agreed. This was a costly mistake, however, because she found that the courts are very reluctant to take children out of a settled situation. Since the children had been with their father for several months, and especially because his girlfriend at the time testified that they were going to get married, the judge decided to let the father keep the children. (Barbara’s ex-husband and his girlfriend later broke up.) Furthermore, Barbara’s attorney did not adequately prepare her for the trial, implying that the issue of her lesbianism would not be brought up. “ He just said I might be asked if I ’m a lesbian,” she says. “ In fact, this was the first question asked after my name and address, and it was the basis for my husband’s case against me.” Joan, on the other hand, feels that English prepared her well to deal with what she considers to be a homo- phobic court system. She was told, for example, that Multnomah County is the best county in Oregon for homosexuals attempting to win custody of their children, because here they are more likely to encounter a fair judge. However, although Judge Lenon gave custody of the three younger children to Joan (the two older children had asked to live with their father), he stated quite clearly in his closing remarks that he did not consider either parent to possess the qualities of a fit parent. This sort of speech, which English calls the “ custody to the least scuzzy of two scuzzies” speech, is apparently common in Judge Lenon’s court. This is not surprising, English explains, because of the way custody cases are tried, with each parent painting a detrimental picture of the other. “ Judges see each parent at their worst,” says English, “ so they naturally get an imperfect impression of the parenting.” This speech by Judge Lenon, however, was especially bitter. Judge Lenon told Joan that her conduct with her lover Sandy had been “ ...immature, markedly indiscreet, utterly gross and wholly impermissible.” He continued, “ She is selfish. She is self-centered and has, above all, shown ambivalence between her children and [Sandy Echland]. Her relation with [Sandy Echland] is inherently impermanent as demonstrated by [Sandy’s] statement that the last relation she had was two years long and has ended, and she is now in her early maturity.” Joan Brown believes that Lenon’s remarks echoed her husband’s claims that she and Sandy were indiscreet sexually in front of the children. These “ incidents” included roughhousing in front of the children, and an instance where one of the children had walked in on the couple while they were making love. Joan’s husband, Ed Brown (not his real name),, had, in fact, written numerous letters and made many telephone calls to Child Protective Services (CPS) complaining of impropriety in front of Illustration by Nan Wyldie 9
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz