Lexplug logoLexplug

Piatt v. Piatt

Court of Appeals of Virginia
27 Va. App. 426, 499 S.E.2d 567, 1998 Va. App. LEXIS 294 (1998)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a child custody determination, a court may consider a parent's post-separation sexual conduct and uncertainty regarding their sexual orientation as evidence of personal turmoil and an unstable home environment, even without a specific finding that such conduct has a direct adverse effect on the child.


Facts:

  • Donna M. Piatt (wife) and John Piatt (husband) were married in 1989 and had a child in 1993.
  • The couple separated in December 1994, but initially continued to live in the same residence.
  • Following the separation, the husband entered into one serious heterosexual relationship and made plans for marriage.
  • The wife entered into two sequential homosexual relationships, acknowledging she was 'experimenting' and 'struggling with her own sexual identity.'
  • The wife’s exploration of her sexual orientation caused a strained relationship with her father.
  • The husband continued to reside in the marital home where the child had lived her entire life.
  • A court-appointed custody evaluator, Dr. Christopher D. Lane, performed an evaluation and recommended that the wife be granted primary physical custody.

Procedural Posture:

  • Donna M. Piatt (wife) and John Piatt (husband) litigated child custody in a Virginia trial court.
  • The trial court ordered a custody evaluation, which resulted in a recommendation that the wife receive primary physical custody.
  • The trial court held an ore tenus hearing to take evidence and hear testimony.
  • The trial court entered a final order awarding the parties joint legal custody but granting primary physical custody to the husband.
  • Donna M. Piatt, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeals of Virginia; John Piatt is the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trial court err in a child custody determination by awarding primary physical custody to one parent based on a finding that the other parent's ongoing 'turmoil' regarding their sexual orientation and multiple same-sex relationships created a less stable home environment, even without evidence of direct harm to the child?


Opinions:

Majority - Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge

No. A trial court does not err by considering a parent's personal 'turmoil' regarding sexual identity as a factor in assessing the stability of their home environment for a child custody determination. The court treated the wife's post-separation sexual behavior not as having a direct negative impact on the child, but as a manifestation of her inner 'turmoil' and 'lack of control.' This consideration is directly relevant to a parent's ability to provide a stable home and meet the child's needs. The evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the husband's environment—characterized by a long-term relationship, plans for marriage, and consistent family support—was more stable than the wife's, which was marked by her ongoing struggle with her sexual identity and strained family relationships. The trial court is not required to accept an expert's recommendation and its decision will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong.


Dissenting - Annunziata, Judge

Yes. The trial court erred by applying different standards when evaluating the parties' post-separation sexual conduct and by considering it without any evidence of an adverse effect on the child. The trial judge incorrectly labeled the wife's two serial, monogamous relationships as 'promiscuity' while not applying the same label to the husband's nonmarital heterosexual relationship, a distinction unsupported by the evidence. Virginia law, established in Brown v. Brown, requires a court to consider the actual effect a parent's nonmarital relationship has on the child. Here, there was no evidence that the wife's conduct or identity struggle had any negative effect on the child. The trial court's finding of 'stability' was merely a pretext for its disparate and improper treatment of the wife’s homosexual conduct.



Analysis:

This case is significant for its approach to parental homosexuality in custody disputes. The majority opinion allows a trial court to sidestep a direct ruling on the fitness of a homosexual parent by re-framing the issue as one of 'stability.' By focusing on the parent's 'turmoil' and 'experimentation' with their sexual identity, the court can justify a custody award to a heterosexual parent without finding direct harm to the child from the homosexuality itself. This creates a precedent where a parent's process of self-discovery can be used against them in court, potentially disadvantaging LGBTQ+ parents who are not in long-term, settled relationships. The dissent argues this is a discriminatory double standard that misapplies the established legal test, which requires evidence of actual harm to the child.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Piatt v. Piatt (1998) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Piatt v. Piatt