## Facts

- Donna M. Piatt (mother) and John Piatt (father) married in 1989; their child was born in 1993.
- The parties separated in December 1994 and later entered a settlement agreement that included a court-ordered custody evaluation.
- The evaluator recommended joint legal custody, primary physical custody to the mother, and liberal visitation to the father, citing both parents’ devotion and reporting no reliable evidence that children are harmed by being raised by a homosexual parent.
- After the mother moved out in June 1996, the child alternated weeks with each parent; both parents found the arrangement unsatisfactory.
- Post-separation, the father had a serious heterosexual relationship; the mother had two relationships with women and described herself as experimenting and still determining her sexual orientation.
- After trial, the circuit court awarded joint legal custody but primary physical custody to the father, emphasizing comparative stability and the father’s extended-family support; it did not find the mother’s sexual orientation itself harmed the child.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court treated the mother’s post-separation sexual conduct differently from the father’s post-separation sexual conduct in deciding custody.
2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to make findings regarding the statutory custody factors in Va. Code § 20-124.3.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in evidentiary rulings.
4. Whether the trial court employed a conclusive presumption that homosexual parents are harmful to children.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the custody and visitation order.
- The court held the trial court did not find adverse effects on the child from either parent’s post-separation sexual conduct and used the evidence only as part of a stability analysis.
- The court held the trial court was required to consider statutory best-interest factors, but was not required to make detailed, factor-by-factor findings on the record.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the challenged evidentiary rulings.
- The court rejected the claim that the trial court applied a categorical presumption of harm based on homosexuality, characterizing the decision as fact-specific and tied to home stability.

## Legal Principles

- Child custody determinations are reviewed with deference to the trial court’s fact-finding and weighing of the child’s best interests.
- A court must consider the statutory best-interest factors in Va. Code § 20-124.3, but need not recite or make explicit findings on each factor if the record shows the factors were considered.
- A parent’s sexual orientation does not, by itself, establish harm to a child; a court may not apply a conclusive presumption that homosexual parents are unfit.
- Evidence concerning a parent’s relationships and personal circumstances may be considered to the extent it bears on the stability of the home environment and the child’s welfare.
- Evidentiary rulings in custody trials are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and reversal requires a showing of reversible error.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed an award of primary physical custody to the father, holding that the trial court permissibly focused on comparative home stability and did not presume harm from the mother’s same-sex relationships, and that consideration of statutory best-interest factors need not be expressed through detailed factor-by-factor findings.


Piatt v. Piatt, 27 Va. App. 426, 499 S.E.2d 567 (Va. Ct. App. 1998)