Victoria Moses and Kelvin King, the biological parents of a twelve-year-old girl, fell into conflict when King failed to pay monthly child support. When Moses filed an action for contempt, the court found King “to be $16,500 in arrears and ordered him to jail if he didn’t come up with $5,000 right away and agree to a payment schedule,” according to Professor Leonard’s summary at the Lesbian/Gay Law Notes.

As payback, King filed a complaint against Moses challenging her fitness as a parent and her ability to provide for their child. He also alleged that “Moses had become an ‘irresponsible’ mother and had a series of same-sex partners,” Professor Leonard wrote. King claimed that as a married person, he could provide a stable, traditional environment.

Professor Leonard stated what happened at the trial court level:

The trial judge seems to have initially fallen for this line, changing primary physical custody to King and ordering Moses to pay child support to King. The trial judge claimed that this had nothing to do with Moses’ sexual orientation, insisting that the judge would be equally unhappy had Moses been through several short relationships with men culminating in a nonmarital cohabitation.

Moses took her case to the court of appeals. Professor Leonard described the reversal of the trial court’s decision:

Reversing a trial court decision that implicitly assumed that it is harmful for a child to be raised in a lesbian household, a panel of the Court of Appeals of Georgia ruled in Moses v. King, 2006WL2742296 (Sept. 27, 2006), that the trial court erred by modifying an original custody decree without any evidence that the mother’s relationship was harmful to her child.

Professor Leonard summed up his feelings about this case below, explaining why the court of appeals’ reversal was a victory for LGBTQ rights:

What was most refreshing about this decision was the refusal of the court of appeals to take seriously the trial court’s assertion that it was not ruling because of the mother’s sexual orientation, and to go beneath the surface to produce an objective analysis of the evidence and apply established principles of family law to reach the appropriate result. This is not something one could routinely count upon from appeals courts a generation ago, and it is still not all that common in the southeastern states.

To read the entire analysis of the case, click on the banner to the right for the Lesbian/Gay Law Notes. Professor Leonard also discusses this case on his blog, The Leonard Link, where you can leave comments.