## Facts

- A 1981 divorce decree granted the mother custody of two minor children and gave the father “reasonable visitation.”
- In 1984, the court issued more specific visitation terms after “reasonable visitation” proved unworkable.
- In 1985, the mother moved to hold the father in contempt for child-support nonpayment and sought increased support; the father moved to expand visitation and to hold the mother in contempt for denying visitation.
- The father was openly homosexual at the time of the post-decree proceedings.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the father overnight visitation, conditioned on his not exercising visitation “in the presence of any non-related male person.”
- The mother appealed, arguing the father’s homosexuality should bar overnight visitation and asserting risks of “homosexual influence,” AIDS exposure, and social stigma; she presented no expert testimony supporting these claims.

## Issues

1. Whether a noncustodial parent’s homosexuality, without evidence of actual or likely harm to the children, justifies denying or restricting overnight visitation.
2. Whether speculative concerns about AIDS, sexual-orientation “influence,” or social stigma are sufficient grounds to limit visitation.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing overnight visitation subject to a “no non-related male present” condition.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the visitation order.
- The court held homosexuality is not a per se basis to deny or restrict visitation.
- The court found the mother’s asserted harms speculative and unsupported by evidence in the record.
- Applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, the court upheld the condition barring visitation in the presence of any non-related male person.

## Legal Principles

- Visitation is governed by the child’s best interests; restrictions must rest on evidence that visitation would materially and adversely affect the child’s welfare.
- A parent’s sexual orientation, standing alone, does not justify denying visitation; the focus is the demonstrated or reasonably probable effect of the parent’s conduct on the child.
- Courts may not substitute generalized moral disapproval or unsupported fears for proof of actual or likely harm.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to structure visitation conditions, and appellate courts will not disturb those conditions absent an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld conditional overnight visitation for the father, rejecting a categorical rule against overnight visitation by a homosexual parent and requiring evidence of actual or likely harm before restricting parent-child contact.


Conkel v. Conkel, 509 N.E.2d 983 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987)