A
Maryland
appeals
court
heard
arguments
this
week
over
whether
it
should
reverse
a
lower
court
ruling
that
prohibits
a
gay
father
from
living
with
his
same-sex
domestic
partner
while
raising
his
12-year-old
son.
In
an
April
12
hearing
before
the
Maryland
Court
of
Special
Appeals
in
Annapolis,
gay
rights
attorney
Susan
Sommer
argued
that
the
custody
restriction
against
Ulf
Hedberg
violates
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court’s
2003
decision
of
Lawrence
vs.
Texas,
in
which
the
court
struck
down
state
sodomy
laws.
Sommer,
senior
counsel
for
the
gay
group
Lambda
Legal
Defense
&
Education
Fund,
noted
that
Hedberg
and
his
partner,
Blaise
Delahoussaye,
had
raised
the
child
since
1996,
when
Hedberg
and
his
wife
separated.
Hedberg
and
his
wife
had
been
living
in
Alexandria,
Va.,
and
shortly
after
the
separation,
Hedberg,
the
director
of
archives
at
Galludette
University,
and
Delahoussaye,
an
accountant
with
the
National
Institutes
of
Health,
bought
their
own
house
in
Alexandria,
where
they
raised
the
child
together
for
five-and-a-half
years.
The
former
wife,
Annica
Detthow,
continued
to
visit
the
child
following
her
and
Hedberg’s
divorce
and
did
not
appear
to
object
to
Hedberg
and
Delahoussaye’s
living
arrangement.
But
in
2002,
Detthow
moved
to
Florida
and
petitioned
the
Alexandria
District
Court
for
sole
custody.
A
Circuit
Court
judge
denied
her
custody
request
and
granted
custody
to
Hedberg.
But
at
the
same
time,
the
judge
imposed
a
condition
prohibiting
Hedberg
from
living
with
Delahoussaye.
In
a
practice
that
surprised
attorneys
on
both
sides,
the
Circuit
Court
proceedings
were
conducted
without
an
official
court
reporter,
resulting
in
the
judge’s
custody
order
becoming
the
only
written
record
in
the
court’s
action.
Although
the
order
doesn’t
cite
any
law
on
which
the
judge
based
his
prohibition
on
Hedberg
and
Delahoussaye
living
together,
Sommer
said
judges
in
similar
custody
cases
have
cited
the
Virginia
sodomy
law
as
grounds
for
barring
a
gay
parent
from
gaining
custody
of
a
child
unless
the
parent
agrees
not
to
cohabitate
with
a
same-sex
partner.
The
2002
ruling
by
the
Alexandria
Circuit
Court
judge
came
one
year
before
the
Supreme
Court
handed
down
its
Lawrence
decision.
Change
of
states
Hedberg
and
Delahoussaye
complied
with
the
custody
order
by
moving
into
separate
apartments
in
Rockville,
Md.,
Sommer
said.
Delahoussaye
visited
the
child
regularly
on
weekends,
according
to
Sommer.
Last
year,
Hedberg
asked
the
Montgomery
County,
Md.,
Circuit
Court
to
lift
the
restriction
barring
him
from
living
with
his
partner
while
raising
his
son.
Sommer
said
Hedberg
went
to
the
Montgomery
County
court
because
he
now
lives
in
that
jurisdiction
and
was
hopeful
the
court
would
base
its
ruling
on
Maryland
custody
laws,
which
are
more
favorable
to
gay
parents
than
Virginia
law.
Unlike
Virginia,
Maryland
courts
routinely
grant
custody
of
children
to
gays
who
live
with
domestic
partners
following
the
separation
or
divorce
from
a
married
spouse,
Sommer
said.
Susan
Silber,
a
gay
rights
attorney
who
practices
law
in
Montgomery
County,
said
a
Montgomery
County
Circuit
Court
judge
in
Rockville
upheld
the
Virginia
court’s
decision
in
Hedberg’s
case
in
September
2004,
much
to
the
dismay
of
Hedberg
and
Delahoussaye.
Silber,
who
argued
the
case
before
the
Montgomery
circuit
court,
said
the
judge
ruled
that
Maryland
law
required
that
he
uphold
decisions
in
custody
cases
issued
in
other
states
if
no
significant
reason
could
be
shown
to
overturn
such
a
decision.
The
judge
held
that
he
could
find
no
compelling
reason
to
change
the
decision
by
the
Virginia
judge,
Silber
said.
In
her
arguments
before
the
Maryland
appeals
court
this
week,
Sommer
said
that
in
addition
to
the
invalidation
of
the
Virginia
sodomy
law,
as
a
result
of
the
Lawrence
decision,
the
Maryland
appeals
court
should
overturn
the
circuit
court
decision
on
another
ground.
Sommer
said
the
forced
separation
of
Hedberg
and
Delahoussaye,
which
came
after
the
two
had
raised
the
boy
together
for
a
prolonged
period,
created
a
“drastic
decline
in
the
quality
of
life”
for
the
child.
She
argued
that
the
separation
forced
the
two
men
to
give
up
a
larger
house
with
a
backyard
that
had
been
located
near
a
good
school.
Sommer
told
the
appeals
court
that
the
boy
also
experienced
hardship
by
losing
the
daily
presence
of
Delahoussaye,
who
had
served
as
a
second
parent.
The
adverse
affect
on
the
boy,
now
12,
is
a
compelling
reason
for
the
court
to
consider
reversing
the
custody
restriction
banning
Hedberg
and
Delahoussaye
from
living
together,
Sommer
argued.
