The Tennessee Court of Appeals unanimously ordered a trial court to reconsider a ruling preventing Angel Chandler, a divorced mom, from having her teen children and her partner of 10 years stay overnight at her home at the same time. The trial court used the so-called “paramour clause” to impose the restriction. The ACLU, which represented Chandler, explains:
Despite a court-ordered psychological evaluation of all the parties finding Chandler’s partner was a positive influence on the teenagers, the trial judge imposed the restriction under the mistaken belief that he was required to do so under state law. Since same-sex couples cannot get married in Tennessee, the requirement that Chandler couldn’t have an unmarried partner in the home meant that Chandler couldn’t have her partner of ten years live at home. . . .
Lawyer Nancy Polikoff, who represented a gay dad in a similar case, offers her thoughts on the ruling, which are worth reading in full. She notes that lesbian and gay parents who come out after having children may still face obstacles to parenting them, even if they are the legal parents. She adds:
I’m glad Tennessee has removed this one, but all it has done is said that the “paramour provision” cannot be imposed without considering the child’s best interests. It’s a start, but it is by no means a guarantee that a judge won’t get away with imposing such a restriction on flimsy reasons that do not fully honor our families and relationships.
Still, a start is something. Let’s hope the trial court does indeed consider the best interests of the children in its new ruling.
Pingback: Mombian » Blog Archive » Less Is Paramour