Custody Decision

As a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, I am frequently called on to represent difficult clients raising important issues. But in the recent case involving the custody of Brian Batey, I had the privilege to represent Craig Corbett on a very important issue. So it was with some concern that I read two letters (Nov. 16) charging that the judge in that case had usurped her authority and stripped Betty Lou Batey of custody of her son. Nothing could be further from the truth.

After seven years of struggle, the question of where and with which adult Brian Batey would live has finally come to a happy end for Brian. Since his parents divorced in 1980, he has been the subject of a custody battle, waged primarily in the national media, and fueled by his mother’s fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. But this time around, the court had a new factor to consider: Brian’s preference given his age. The court was compelled by law to give great weight to the expressed desire of a 16-year-old youth to remain with a person he has known and loved since he was 4.

The court’s decision to grant Brian’s request that Corbett be named his guardian was not based on his mother’s religion or Corbett’s sexual orientation. Nor did the court make any new law: The court just followed the long-standing principle that it be guided by the best interests of the child. As much as we may want to deny it, the fact is that sometimes it simply is not in the best interests of a child to remain with or be returned to his birth parent.

In naming Corbett as Brian’s guardian, the court recounted the very serious deprivation which Brian had suffered in his mother’s custody. The judge found that nothing had occurred to demonstrate that returning Brian to his mother now would be any different.

While it is understandable that people reading newspaper reports of this case might think that Mrs. Batey had somehow suddenly been deprived of her parental role, the truth is that this decision, based on a factual determination that she had neglected her son’s care and nurturance, was first made five years ago.

This case was remarkable not for the fact that a judge awarded custody to a non-parent. Rather, this case was remarkable for the fact that a judge and a judicial system, subjected to unprecedented personal attacks, made a reasoned decision based on the facts and the law.

That process is in everybody’s best interest.

CAROL SOBEL

ACLU Staff Attorney

Los Angeles