American Civil Liberties Union

An appeal of the imposition of a "paramour" restriction on the custody rights of a mother in a lesbian relationship in Tennessee.

Since their divorce more than 10 years ago, Angel Chandler and Joseph Barker have shared custody of their two children. During this time, they both entered into new relationships. Chandler has been in a relationship with another woman since 1999. Barker remarried approximately 5 years ago.

The custody arrangement of the two children, a daughter 13, and a son, 15, worked out relatively well until the couple appeared before a trial court in Gibson County, Tennessee, to modify their parenting plan. On November 17, 2007, the court ordered all parties to undergo a psychological evaluation. Although the evaluation concluded that Chandler’s partner was a positive influence on the children, on May 15, 2008, the court imposed a so-called “paramour” restriction on the couple, forcing Chandler’s partner from her home any nights her children are with her.

The restriction has caused a huge strain on Chandler’s relationship. Right after the order was issued, Chandler’s partner was forced to move back to North Carolina, making it virtually impossible for the couple to spend time together. Eventually they both relocated to North Carolina where they now live in a duplex that allows them to abide by the order. But Chandler had to leave her job and has just recently found suitable employment. The restriction has also been harmful to Chandler’s children, especially her daughter, who enjoyed spending time with her mother’s partner and who looked to her for advice and guidance. Living in the duplex, the couple is also losing rental income they relied on before the court imposed the ban.

With the help of the ACLU, Chandler is asking the Tennessee appeals courts to remove the restriction barring her partner from her home.

Status: VICTORY! The appeals court unanimously ruled that the best interests of the children trump the blanket imposition of a paramour restriction and ordered the trial court to reconsider the restriction in light of their ruling.