The issue is whether Lawrence v. Texas invalidates cohabitation restrictions in custody cases

Annapolis, MD – This week Liberty Counsel’s Senior Litigation Counsel, Rena Lindevaldsen, presented oral argument before the Maryland Court of Appeals on the validity of a Virginia court order that grants custody on the condition that the ex-husband does not cohabit with his same-sex partner. Ms. Lindevaldsen and Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, represent the mother, Annica Detthow, the former wife, in this appeal.

After several years of marriage, Annica’s husband, Ulf Hedberg, left her to pursue a same-sex relationship with a long-time family friend. A Virginia court granted custody to Mr. Hedberg with liberal visitation to Annica, but specified that Mr. Hedberg no longer live with his partner. Mr. Hedberg did not appeal the order. Instead, a year later he moved 26 miles to Maryland, and shortly thereafter asked the Maryland courts to remove the cohabitation restriction.

After the Maryland Circuit Court refused to modify the custody order, Mr. Hedberg appealed, with help from the National Center for Lesbian Rights. His attorneys argued that Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Texas’s sodomy law, rendered the cohabitation restriction unconstitutional. Hedberg’s attorneys urged the court to adopt an extreme view of Lawrence – one that invalidates any court order or legislation that has a “moral base.” Virginia courts, as in many states, are permitted to consider whether the parent is living with an unmarried partner, regardless of whether it is a same- or opposite-sex relationship. While Maryland no longer takes extramarital relations into consideration in making custody determinations (absent proof of actual harm to the child), Maryland will enforce a custody order from another state. This case is quite simple. Under Maryland law, the custody order should be enforced, but the National Center for Lesbian Rights is seeking to break new ground by invalidating any and all custody or visitation restrictions that seek to protect children from situations where one parent is cohabiting with an unmarried partner.

Mathew Staver commented: “This case shows how radical groups seek to eradicate the moral and common sense foundations of our laws. It is ridiculous to suggest that any law founded on morals is unconstitutional. Law is expressed morality and social values. Courts have the right to protect children in custody disputes from being thrust into an environment where one parent is cohabiting with an unmarried partner. Revolving bedroom doors or untethered parental relationships with the same or opposite sex are not in the best interest of children.”