Gay Dad Banned For Seeing Kids While He Has Male Partner Loses Appeal

[Q3JR4]

(Boise, Idaho) The Idaho Supreme Court today upheld a lower court ruling that said Theron McGriff could not have visitation rights with his children while he lived with a male partner.

Theron McGriff and his wife, Shawn McGriff, divorced six years ago when he came out. Under the divorce agreement Theron McGriff got custody of the two children.

But, when he met another man, fell in love and the two bought a home together, Shawn McGriff went back to court claiming a gay relationship wasn't in the best interest of their two daughters.

<snip>

In it's ruling today...it upheld the lower court prohibition on McGriff's visitation rights saying that his "living arrangements", and the children's exposure to it, had been shown to be detrimental and posed a valid danger of alienating the children's affection toward their mother.


http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/09/092104mcGrif.htm

More at link.
<snip>

[nickinSTL]

1. detrimental my @ss

n/t

[jdj]

43. The rulings in the Sharon Bottoms case were similar

It is disgusting to me that in this case the GRANDMOTHER stole her daughter's child from her. I honestly would not put it past my parents to try to pull this shit on me if I had a child.

http://archive.aclu.org/news/n050797c.html

March 1993 -- Upon learning that her daughter is a lesbian, Pamela Kay Bottoms goes to court seeking to transfer custody of her grandson, Tyler Doustou, from the child's mother, Sharon. Tyler is two years old.

March 31, 1993 -- The Henrico County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court rules in Kay Bottoms's favor, and transfers custody of Tyler to her.

September 21, 1993 -- Judge Buford M. Parsons Jr., of the Henrico County Circuit Court, affirms the custody transfer, saying that lesbians are never fit to be parents. Judge Parsons also issues a visitation order, under which Sharon Bottoms is never allowed to have Tyler at her home, which she shares with her partner, April Wade. The judge also rules that Tyler can never visit while April Wade is physically present. (The visits, which are restricted between 10 a.m. Mondays to 6 p.m. Tuesdays, usually takes place at the home of Bottoms's friends.) Sharon Bottoms appeals the custody ruling.

June 21, 1994 -- The Virginia Court of Appeals reverses, ruling that there is insufficient evidence to prove that Tyler's best interest is furthered by the custody transfer. "To the contrary," the court writes, "the evidence showed that Sharon Bottoms is and has been a fit and nurturing parent who has adequately provided and cared for her son." Kay Bottoms appeals the decision.

April 25, 1995 -- The Virginia Supreme Court, in a divided 4-to-3 decision, reinstates the Circuit Court's custody decision. While ruling that a person's sexual orientation alone does not automatically render that person an unfit parent, the state's highest court says that Tyler would suffer increased stigma as a result of having a lesbian mother. The Court also indirectly invokes the Virginia sodomy statute, suggesting that Sharon is less fit to be a mother because she violates the law.

[Momgonepostal]

2. That's awful

Interesting that he got custody initially. Often backwards places favor the mom.

I don't see how the kids seeing that dad is gay would endanger their relationship with mom. ????

[cally]

3. Unbelievable

I just can't understand why anyone would want to keep kids from visiting with both parents unless abuse is involved. Sad for the children, the father, and all others in similar situations.

[donco6]

29. Well of COURSE there's abuse - he's gay, after all!

Aren't ALL gays child molesters?

<sarcasm off>

[Q3JR4]

4. It's so sad. He really loves them.

I didn't think he would loose the decision. I hope he appeals as far as he can take it. The last judge declared that he had to pay his wife's legal bills!

I hope some gay rights organization comes along and helps him out.

I hate to see crap like this happen. Of course in Idaho who would have expected less?

Fucking back water state.

[ThomCat]

14. Can he appeal this further?

[noonwitch]

5. Does he have grounds to kick it up to federal court?

I don't know whether he can or not, but if he can, he should. It's far more detrimental to the kid to deprive him of his father. They could have issued a ruling that alllowed him to visit his kid and leave the partner behind, if the court is so homophobic. The only way this could ever be justified is if the partner was a convicted felon or something.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. I believe so. This has "DISCRIMINATION" written all over it. (nt)

[Q3JR4]

9. I'm sure he does.

This whole thing came around because his wife found out he was living and loving another man. That's the reason for the whole thing.

In Lawrence V. Texas, the Supreme Court basically said that you can't treat people differently based on the sexuality of the individuals involved.

I don't see why he can't appeal the ruling. Especially since, I'm sure, the APS would get behind him on the issue.

[sui generis]

7. how's that for family values?

I suppose that every straight divorced man living in the spare bedroom of his brother's house should also be denied visitation rights to his children.

What kind of crack are these people smoking? And that Shawn McGriff witch of an ex-wife needs her own special place in hell. Denying someone access to their own children because you don't approve of who they love is pure sickness, nevermind that it's a horrible thing to do to your children.

And the supreme court of Idaho is insane -- any living arrangement can be shown to be detrimental and posing a valid danger of alienating the children's affection to the absent parent, especially when custody is awarded exclusively to one parent. I can't believe that a judge who is that stupid should be allowed to wear a robe even in private, much less on the state supreme court bench.

[Arianrhod]

13. It's not stupidity, it's agenda.

I told my coworkers in December 2000 that all the lunatic, bigoted, hate-filled wackos would be coming out of the woodwork under a * regime, which gives license to all manner of immorality. I don't think I was wrong.

[jdj]

44. Lesbian Mary Ward lost custody to her husband, a convicted murderer.

He KILLED HIS FIRST WIFE, but SHE was deemed unfit.

" In 1994, Mary Ward lost custody to her former husband, even though he had been convicted and served time for the murder of his first wife. In Alabama, and in North Carolina, unconscionable state supreme court rulings as late as 1998 took kids out of the homes they were sharing with their gay families, and removed them to heterosexual former spouses due to the fact that a previously-single gay parent had found a life partner and the kids were now exposed to an actual gay relationship. For all the horror stories, however, many other courts were deciding as a matter of law that sexual orientation alone could no longer be a bar to custody, and that some further evidence of harm to a child must be proffered.

http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1001/topfight_parents.htm

[kayell]

8. More details

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/9725243.htm?1c

snip

The high court agreed with the magistrate that McGriff's children were having difficulty handling joint custody arrangements, and that the Idaho Falls man's refusal to communicate directly with his ex-wife provided a sufficient basis to consider changing the custody arrangement.

The magistrate ruled that McGriff can see his daughters only if he does not live with his male partner of eight years. That restriction stands.

Weingartner said she feared the children would suffer backlash from the conservative, heavily Mormon town because of their father's sexuality, and that she wanted McGriff to undergo counseling over how to present his lifestyle to the girls.

more

[Eloriel]

10. How sick, how sad, how utterly wrong.

Heartbreaking, simply heartbreaking. I hope they can appeal it.

[livinginphotographs]

11. Disgusting.

I don't know how much of a chance he'll have in fighting this, though. We had a similar case in Virginia a few years back, where a grandmother got custody of her grandchildren from her lesbian daughter.

That mother should be absolutely ashamed of herself - every kid needs a father, gay or not.

[Q3JR4]

12. The difference is

that now, they don't have sodomy laws to bludgen us over the head with. I'm interested to see how the court system handles that.

[Parche]

15. idaho

what do you expect for idaho

[HuckleB]

18. Overgeneralizations and cliches about states don't help.

[Q3JR4]

19. It's crazy.

The supremes here in Idaho basically reversed themselves. They started out by telling Mr. McGriff's wife that though her attorneys say it isn't about her ex-husband's sexual orientation, they made it so. The way it was said seemed like good news to me.

Then they release this crappy ruling. Pisses me off so much, let me tell you.

I live here in Idaho and as soon as I graduate, I'm out of here. This piss ant little state with their right wing judicial, executive, and legislative branches can kiss my ass. I'm not "overgeneralizing" when I say that.

[HuckleB]

21. Reality.

This type of ruling could happen in any state. It's not just an Idaho thing. Sorry, but the grass just ain't always all that much greener elsewhere.

[Q3JR4]

23. There are

other states in the union where, I'm sure, the outcome would have been markedly different. Since I pay taxes here I feel that there is no reason to stay here if the state government intends to keep doing this crap.

In fact, if it doesn't get much better on the federal level, I'm leaving the country. There is no reason for me to continue to pay the money I do in taxes when there is no possibility of receiving equal treatment (not just in adoption proceedings).

As I go through college I'll probably continue to receive federal pell grants for my education. Something that they will never see a return on if things don't begin to change (woo hoo, big threat I know).

Granted this isn't about me, but if it happens to one gay man what's to stop it from happening to another?

[HuckleB]

25. It's possible that another outcome could occur in any state.

It's also possible that the same outcome could occur in any state. My point is simply that it's not just Idaho that falls into this line of thinking. Nor is it everyone in Idaho that falls into this line of thinking.

I wouldn't blame you one bit for leaving the country, if you are able to do so, in order to live in nation where you and others possess more equal rights. Of course, I'd also love it if you stayed and helped fight for those rights here. But, again, in no way could I blame you or anyone else for leaving.

[Q3JR4]

27. It's just hard to read

about crap like this happening in any part of the United States. Some of us knew in 2000 when * was (s)elected exactly where we were heading. We saw the writing on the wall in terms of how the extreme right wanted us treated. The Dems just sat there and let it happen. Even now the Reps are using us as political fodder for their right wing base, and where are the Dems?

What's the point in fighting when the opposition won't do a thing other than play lip service to your rights?

The fact that they have pushed for full equality for every minority group in this country doesn't mean a thing when you realize that they won't do the same for us. The argument goes that they can't support us because that would make them unelectable. But by treating us differently they are throwing away the thing that made the Democratic party great. We vote for these people in nearly every election. They get our votes (because, you know, they're not as 'extreme') and still nothing changes.

The gay and lesbian population in this country gets crapped on and no one with political power seems to care.

No, we can't count on either party to stand up for us. The only group that we've been able to count on is the judiciary and even some of them can't see past their weak minded fears.

What would be even worse, though, is if the current regime holds on to power. The same right wing bigoted fears will be translated into the only moderate high branch of government with power to truly change things we have left. When that happens the nation will truly loose it's soul and the current regime will be able to do whatever they want without any outside interference.

Maybe it will change (in that vein I'm voting in the next election for Johns Kerry and Edwards in hopes that it will--though I think they too are just playing lip service). If not, in two years time there will be nothing keeping me in this state or even in this country.

[Arianrhod]

40. That's the primary reason I'm voting for Kerry.

We need to restore the balance and moderacy of the justice system. We don't need ideologues of either persuasion sitting on the bench. We know what animals * would nominate--he's already gone behind Congress' back to put one bigot in power. And Scalia is his model for the Supreme Court--a man who is on public record as hating democracy and opposing the Constitution, a fanatical superstitionist every bit as insane and evil as Ashcroft, an arrogant prick who confiscates reporters' tapes because he's afraid the truth about him will become widely known.

The country won't survive a majority of these unAmerican wackos on the bench, especially with a Republican Congress that won't impeach them.

We need Kerry, first and foremost, to stop the lunacy and the descent into the 9th Circle.

[HuckleB]

16. The law doesn't always follow logic and knowledge.

That much is clear.

Ugh.

[BiggJawn]

17. But she can have a different "Uncle" visit every week...

Just like in the "Olden times" (1980's)

Idaho....another place on my "Eh, let's go visit elsewhere" list

[freestyle]

20. How do two fathers "alienate affection" for the mother?

That just makes no sense whatsoever. Also, following this illogic is the custodial parent in any divorce to remain single and never bring anyone home until the children reach adulthood lest any affection be lost for the non-custodial parent. Yet another example of the stupidity of discrimination and the lengths people will go to for it.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

22. Those poor children...

They're being taught to discriminate against their own father.

Damn the court. Damn their mother. :grr:

[Wind Dancer]

24. Absolutely disgusting!

The kids will suffer greatly as a result of this decision. I have no respect for the mother in this situation, none!

[Shallah Kali]

26. 'family values' nuts want kids to stay with parents no matter the abuse

but heaven forbid that a nonabusive loving GAY parent have any rights :puke:

As for the judge's argument if simply living with another person would alienate the kid's affection toward the other parent then all divorced parents would never be able to remarry because it would harm the kids' relationship with the other parent. What a load of manure!

[happyslug]

28. Read the Opinion of the Court and you will see why he was denied custody

If a Court recommend Counseling and one side decides to IGNORE the court, most courts will do what this court did, give the children to the parent WHO OBEYED THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Here the Father just did NOT want to go to the recommended Counseling sessions with his children and their mother. Even if he was straight that would be grounds for him to lose custody of his children (I have represented MOTHERS who lost their kids for this reason).

This is NOT gay rights, but the courts insisting you obey Court Orders. The Courts want BOTH parents to communicate with each other regarding the upbrining of the children, that is more than sending a letter via the children (in my courts sending ANYTHING via the children is disliked). Communication is more than dictating to the other side (which is what the father did in this case) but both parents acting together, something it was clear from the record WAS not happening here do to the FATHER REFUSING to commuicate with the Mother.

The dessent (one judge only) said the hearing officer wrongfully consisered the Father's Homosexuality and would have remanded the case to the Master for a new hearing with instructions to ignore the father's homosexuality, the majority rejected this for part of the lack of communcations was Father refusing to discuss with mother how to tell the children he was a homosexual. The Trial judge made an effort to seperate the Father's Homosexuality and the need for BOTH parents to inform the children of it. Mother wanted the fact to be communicated through a professional, father wanted to do it himself.

I have to go with the Majority in this case, you can NOT send mesages to the other parents in an envelope, if Professional consoloring is recommended and agreed to you just do NOT just ignore what had been agreed to. I just do not see the Court viewing the Homosexulity as the key issue in this case, but the key being the lack of Commications and the FATHER seems to be the casue of the Lack of Communication.


For the actual opinion see:
http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/mcgriff.pdf

[arwalden]

30. A Mere Technicality That Serves As A Means To An End

"Shawn McGriff went back to court claiming a gay relationship wasn't in the best interest of their two daughters."

[happyslug]

32. Look at the findings of the Court:

You are correct in saying the Mother (Shawn) had filed objections to Theron (Father) having Custody do to his homosexuality, but the court ruling relied more on the problem of LACK OF COMMUICATION between the parties NOT the Father's homosexuality:

"Pursuant to Dr. Corgiat’s recommendations, the magistrate judge entered an Order for Counseling on October 24, 2001. In this, the court ordered: “The pending Petitions filed by both parties shall be and hereby are dismissed.” Theron and Shawn were ordered to attend counseling with Dr. Howard Harper, upon whom both parties had agreed as a counselor. The magistrate subsequently found that Theron then ignored repeated requests by Shawn through her attorney to begin the counseling, and when they finally agreed to begin counseling, Theron insisted on counseling sessions separate from Shawn. Further, the court found that during his first session, Theron presented a “list of demands,” which he insisted must be addressed before any further communication could be considered, which demands were unrelated to Dr. Corgiat’s recommendations. The magistrate judge then found that Theron took his daughters to a separate counselor, Sue Heng, without notice to or the agreement of Shawn. After doing so, Theron revealed his sexual orientation to the older daughter, again without notice to Shawn and without her being present, despite her repeated requests to be present when this happened......


Of the findings made by the magistrate, the most significant finding directly relating to the best interests of the children is Theron’s refusal to effectively communicate with Shawn, or indeed, to communicate at all. The magistrate made extensive findings that Theron had discontinued all direct communication with Shawn and would only communicate with her via their attorneys or through a "family message envelope" using the children as couriers.

The magistrate found: “Father told Dr. Corgiat and testified in Court that he could not communicate directly with Mother.” One of the material changes in circumstances the magistrate found was “Father’s continuing refusal to communicate directly with Mother and to allow her to participate in important communications and decisions regarding the girls.” The magistrate further observed:

Father admitted that he desires no contact with the children’s Mother. During his testimony he was visibly angry and his body language appeared to show a strong disliking for her. To this extent Father exhibited a lack of control of his negative feelings for Mother in the presence of the Court. The same or worse is likely outside the courtroom in the company of Mother and/or the children.

The court concluded that “the evidence credibly showed that Mother was willing to work with and communicate with Father for the girls’ best interest but Father was not willing.” “Father’s refusal to be in the same room or communicate directly with children’s Mother and his refusal to discuss anything with her personally is clearly detrimental to the girls and makes joint custody completely unworkable.”

Further, the magistrate found that Theron also refused to attend any counseling when Shawn was present. This is a significant failure where the counseling was not only aimed at addressing how Theron’s homosexuality was to be explained to the children but also helping the
two parents work together through their anger towards each other for the best interests of the children. The magistrate stated that when the court-appointed counselor had recommended counseling for both parents, “Mother, her counsel, and the court relied on the parties’ compliance with this recommendation. Mother complied. Father refused.”

Dr. Harper, the counselor agreed upon by the parents to conduct this recommended counseling, “testified that Mr. McGriff insisted upon counseling sessions independently and refused any direct communication with Mrs. McGriff, and further that Mr. McGriff presented a ‘list of demands’ which he insisted must be addressed before any further communication could be considered.” The magistrate concluded: “As a result of Father’s list of demands, and his refusal to participate and
communicate directly with Mother, the counseling recommended by Dr. Corgiat never occurred.”

Theron does not directly refute these findings. He admits in his briefing “communication between Shawn and Theron was strained,” but he insists the family message envelope was “‘an excellent way’ and a helpful method to ‘increase the quality and frequency of communication’ between the parents.” Theron also maintains that he “was interested in finding a way to communicate in an appropriate way with Shawn.” This is the crux of his response to the magistrate’s findings regarding his refusal to communicate with Shawn. Though Theron maintains in his brief that “joint legal custody requires parents to share decision-making with regard to matters directly related to their co-parenting of their children, such as issues relating to the children’s education, health care, recreational activities, and other similar issues,” Theron believes essential communication regarding these decisions can be maintained through passing written messages to Shawn by way of an envelope the children carry back and forth to each parent. He does not contest the findings of the magistrate that he refuses to speak with Shawn or to attend counseling with her. The magistrate judge also commented on Theron's unilateral decision to discuss his sexual orientation with one of the children, in direct contravention of Shawn's wishes. The magistrate found:

Father's unilateral action in taking the girls to Sue Heng without notice to their Mother and contrary to Dr. Corgiat's recommendations and his subsequent unilateral discussion, excluding Mother, about his lifestyle with indicate a lack of disciplined judgment on Father's part and placing the girls needs above his own."


NOTE TO MODS: Court Opinions are PUBLIC records and thus NOT copyrightable, thus it is possible to reprint the entire opinion WITHOUT violating copyright laws (Through any pagnation system like West Citation or Lexis Citation is Copyrightable, but neither system was used in the above opinion for the opinion is from the Idaho's Supreme Court own Web Cite).

[arwalden]

35. I Understand What You're Saying...

... I just think it's a bit naive to believe that this is all there is to it. Call me suspicious and untrusting, but I think this just happens to be a little too convenient and it relieves the court of being so blatantly bigoted in siding with the mother.

That was (techinically) the ruling, but I don't believe that was the motivation. That's all window dressing to hide what I suspect are the true reasons.

-- Allen

[donco6]

31. Not as clear-cut as it looks.

There seems to be two elements to this case - and maybe a third less important element. One, Theron refused joint counseling sessions with his wife and impressed a list of demands on the sessions in general (though the demands are never specifically listed). Two, Theron refused to physically speak to his wife. The third is the intrusion of Theron's partner, Nick Case, in making harassing calls to his wife and to her place of work (idiot).

The counseling requirement bothers me a little. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with that requirement either. Theron would know that he's going to be the one beat up on every week, and that's emotionally rough. He's being required to defend his life, and that's logically impossible.

On the other hand, the childish refusal to speak to her seems a bit over the top.

[Q3JR4]

33. Here is more information on that.

http://www.idahodad.org/html/case_background.htm.

[donco6]

38. Interesting material from the other side

After reading this account, I'm more sympathetic to Theron's side. However, I do think he could have tremendously helped his own case by not refusing to communicate with his wife - regardless of how hard it was. It sounds like she would have inevitably made derogatory comments that would have actually helped his case. As it was, it pretty much pushed her and his counselor into the same camp and left him outside. Not what you want when the counselor is court-appointed and has direct access to the judge.

[Arianrhod]

41. "To deal with his homosexuality"???

Let her deal with it. That's the real problem here.

[happyslug]

34. In My Experience as a Custody and Visitation Lawyer

The big hangup was the Communication via the children. The courts just hate such lack of communications, the Courts want the parents to TALK not to send letters to each other (And the Courts absolutely hates any communications via the Children).

Why the Father believe the Court would leave him communicate via letter DELIVERED by his children is unbelievable. You do NOT do that even if both parties are living as Monks. In my experience such communication techniques will cut out Custody in almost every case and I have seen Judges order restrictions on such parents as a "test" to see if they are willing to start to obey the Court's Orders (i.e. Talk to the other parent). I suspect the ban on visitation while the Father's paramour is in the home is more in that line than any anti-homosexual bias (Through the ban is excessive and will probably be modified upon petition to the court provided the Father follows the rest of the Order).

The Courts hate when a parent puts the children in the middle and communication through the children IS putting the Children in the middle.

[arwalden]

36. Yep... that is pretty horrible...

I'm still suspicious of this judgement... but I also recall how my folks would send messages back and forth. "Tell your father he better come up with the money or I'm gonna call the cops on him!" and "Tell that bitch she'll get her money whenever I get paid and not a day sooner." --- Or bickering to that effect.

-- Allen

[donco6]

37. That was my opinion, too.

I found the "family communication package" to be pretty ridiculous. I'm surprised the guy tried to defend it.

[2Design]

39. hate crimes are being done by the laws and the people who make them

[jdj]

42. More than likely, Shawn will be bait for a predator.

A divorced Mom with two daughters is easy prey for a pedophile.

These girls are probably much safer with their two Dads.

[ismnotwasm]

45. Why, oh why does this crap continue?

I think of the loving gay couples I've known or met. Many would make superior parents. And as a parent and a step parent I know that the blood tie is so important to kids, in a healthy atmosphere, or maybe even not so healthy, kids would give a shit less if their parents were gay. This makes me sick on so many different levels I can't even express myself.