Samantha Jones and Freddie Mercury are married. They have a son whom they have named Liberace. After ten (10) years of marriage, Freddie confesses to Samantha that he is, in fact, homos*xual and that he would like a divorce. During the divorce it came to light that Freddie had several tumultuous affairs with other men while he was married to Samantha, but his suitability as a parent to Liberace was never in question.
Upon granting the divorce, the court ordered that Samantha have custody of Liberace while Freddie was granted liberal rights of access. Liberace is now eight (8) years old.
After several months, Freddie has decided to approach the court to have his rights as a parent defined, particularly his right of access. This is because Samantha (respondent) refuses to allow Liberace to sleep over at Freddie’s house as she is unhappy that Freddie’s boyfriend, George Michael, has moved in. She also insists that they not demonstrate their affection for each other in front of Liberace and that all photographs of themselves together be removed when he is visiting. She is of the view that being homos*xual is abnormal, morally repugnant and damaging to Liberace as it could cause confusion as to how he should develop s*xually. She further states that she has expert psychological evidence to support her claim that it is not in Liberace’s best interests to be exposed to homos*xual behaviour. Therefore, limiting Freddie’s right not to be discriminated against is justified when weighed up against Liberace’s best interests.
Freddie (applicant) claims that discriminating against him on the ground of his s*xual orientation in decisions regarding the best interests of the child is unconstitutional. He claims that he shouldn’t be treated as abnormal or morally repugnant because of his s*xual preference and limiting his rights as a father because of his homos*xuality is not justified.
My group is the respondent party: we have been approached by Samantha to oppose Freddie’s application. She has asked us to draft a legal opinion setting out her legal position to oppose the application.
Our legal opinion must set out relevant legislation as well as relevant case law and must deal with the prospects of success of Samantha’s case. We must argue that discriminating against Freddie on the ground of his s*xual orientation in decisions regarding the best interests of the child is reasonable and acceptable in a democratic society based on freedom and equality; particularly in light of the view that the best interests of the child are paramount.
