## Facts

- A married couple had three children.
- The parties separated after the mother learned the father was having extramarital affairs with men.
- After separation, the father established a household with his male romantic partner.
- During the father’s parenting time, the father and his partner testified that they referred to each other as “roommates” or “friends” and did not display romantic affection in front of the children.
- The partner did not stay overnight in the father’s home while the children were present.
- The mother testified the children exhibited no ill effects from the father’s parenting time under the existing arrangements.
- The trial court found both parents were good parents and that the children needed both parents.
- The trial court awarded joint legal custody, granted primary physical custody to the mother, and awarded parenting time to the father.
- The trial court imposed parenting-time conditions prohibiting the father from (a) having a romantic partner stay overnight during parenting time and (b) showing romantic affection to a romantic partner in the children’s presence.
- The mother appealed, arguing she should have been awarded sole custody and that the father should have been barred from exposing the children to his “homosexual lifestyle”; she also challenged the failure to grant a reservation of future spousal support.
- The father cross-appealed, challenging the parenting-time conditions and raising additional objections to aspects of the court’s financial/support rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding joint custody and declining to bar the father from exposing the children to homosexuality based on his same-sex relationship.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing neutral, conduct-based parenting-time restrictions (no overnight romantic partner; no romantic affection in the children’s presence).
3. Whether the trial court erred by failing to grant the mother a reservation of the right to seek spousal support in the future.
4. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in its other support and financial determinations challenged on appeal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s custody and parenting-time framework, including joint legal custody and the father’s scheduled parenting time.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conduct-based parenting-time conditions limiting overnight romantic guests and romantic affection in the children’s presence.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s failure to grant the mother a reservation of future spousal support and remanded for entry of an order providing that reservation.
- The Court of Appeals otherwise affirmed the trial court’s remaining support/financial rulings challenged in the cross-appeals.

## Legal Principles

- Custody and parenting-time determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and appellate courts defer to the trial court’s factfinding and credibility determinations.
- A parent’s homosexuality cannot be treated as automatically harmful to a child; restrictions based on sexual orientation require specific proof of adverse impact rather than assumption.
- Trial courts may impose neutral, conduct-focused parenting-time conditions related to romantic partners (including limits on overnight stays and displays of affection) when the court finds the conditions serve the child’s best interests.
- When a party requests a reservation of future spousal support and the statutory framework permits it, a trial court’s failure to grant a reservation may be reversible error requiring remand, even if current support is not awarded.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals upheld joint custody, the mother’s primary physical custody, the father’s parenting time, and neutral conditions restricting overnight romantic guests and romantic affection during parenting time, rejecting the mother’s request to bar exposure to the father’s homosexuality absent proof of harm; however, it reversed and remanded to require a reservation of the mother’s right to seek spousal support in the future, and otherwise affirmed the remaining financial rulings.


A.O.V. v. J.R.V., 0219-06-4, Unpublished (2007)