Rather, the rule appears to be that "[t]here must be a nexus between harm to the child and the parent's homosexuality." S.E.G. v. R.A.G., 735 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Mo.App.E.D. 1987). Here, the trial court found "that the relationship is having an ill-effect on the morality of the children and will continue to effect their well-being in the future."

Since 1980, Missouri appellate courts have decided seven cases involving homosexual conduct and child custody and visitation. See T.C.H. v. K.M.H. , 784 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.App. E.D. 1989); J.P. v. P.W. , 772 S.W.2d 786 (Mo.App.S.D. 1989); G.A. v. D.A. , 745 S.W.2d 726 (Mo.App.W.D. 1987); S.E.G. v.R.A.G. , 735 S.W.2d 164 (Mo.App.E.D. 1987); J.L.P.(H.) V. D.J.P. , 643 S.W.2d 865 (Mo.App. W.D. 1982); L. v. D. , 630 S.W.2d 240 (Mo.App.S.D. 1982); N.K.M. v. L.E.M. , 606 S.W.2d 179 (Mo.App.W.D. 1980).

The trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining child custody and our principal concern is, as is the trial court's in awarding custody, the best interest of the children. S.E.G. v. R.A.G., 735 S.W.2d 164, 165 (Mo.App. E.D. 1987); § 452.375. In determining the best interest of the children, the court may consider the conduct of the parents.

We find no support for this position in the statute nor in the case cited by Husband, Vehlewald v. Vehlewald, 853 S.W.2d 944. In both Pursifull v. Pursifull, 781 S.W.2d 262 (Mo.App.E.D. 1989) and S.E.G. v. R.A.G., 735 S.W.2d 164, 167 (Mo.App. E.D. 1987), we find factual situations in which an employed spouse who had custody of children was awarded the marital home. Accordingly, we find this argument unpersuasive.

The J.P. v. P.W. case is not unlike other Missouri cases in which our courts have restricted visitation or transferred custody where homosexual behavior occurred in the presence of the child, the parent's attitude indicated a desire or willingness to expose the child to their lifestyle, or there was a direct, demonstrable effect on the child's welfare. See S.E.G. v. R.A.G., 735 S.W.2d 164 (Mo.App.E.D. 1987); L. v. D., 630 S.W.2d 240 (Mo.App.S.D. 1982); N.K.M. v. L.E.M., 606 S.W.2d 179 (Mo.App.W.D. 1980). In J.L.P. v. D.J.P., 643 S.W.2d 865 (Mo.App.W.D. 1982), the court affirmed the trial court's order that a homosexual father's visitation with his eleven-year-old son be restricted.

Of course, the trial court has the authority to find the evidence presented not credible." S.E.G. v. R.A.G., 735 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Mo.App. 1987) (footnote omitted). "This court agrees with the observation in S.E.G. [ v. R.A.G., 735 S.W.2d 164 (Mo.App. 1987)] that a court cannot ignore the effect which the sexual conduct of a parent may have on a child's moral development.

Davis v. Davis, 693 S.W.2d 879, 883 [11, 12] (Mo.App. 1985). In S.E.G. v. R.A.G., 735 S.W.2d 164 (Mo.App. 1987), the court considered the desire of a self-proclaimed lesbian to obtain custody of her children. The court noted that the mother and her lover showed affection toward one another before the children and slept together in the same bed. The court held that this presented an unhealthy environment for minor children because such conduct can never be kept private enough to be a neutral factor in the development of a child's values and character.

Thus, she should have no visitation. L. v. D., 630 S.W.2d 240 (Mo.App. 1982). See, also, S.E.G. v. R.A.G., 735 S.W.2d 164 (Mo.Ct.App. 1987). Therein, the court ordered restricted visitation.

Examples of discrimination against lesbians and gay men abound. Because of their sexual orientation, lesbians and gay men have been denied custody of children (e.g., Thigpen v. Carpenter (1987) 21 Ark.App. 194 [ 730 S.W.2d 510, 512-514]; S.E.G. v. R.A.G. (Mo.Ct.App. 1987) 735 S.W.2d 164, 167; Roe v. Roe (1985) 228 Va. 722 [ 324 S.E.2d 691, 694]), denied employment opportunities (e.g., Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. Tel. Co., supra, 24 Cal.3d at pp. 463, 464, 475; Murray v. Oceanside Unified School Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1338 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 28]; Kovatch v. California Casualty Management Co. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1275 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 217], overruled on other grounds in Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853, fn. 18 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493]; Collins v. Shell Oil Co. (1991) 56 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 440; Gaylord v. Tacoma School Dist. No. 10 (1977) 88 Wn.2d 286 [ 559 P.2d 1340]) and subjected to harassment on the job (e.g., Carreno v. IBEW Local No. 226 (D.Kan. 1990) 54 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 81). As earlier discussed, lesbians and gay men have been treated as deviants, in need of treatment, and have frequently been victims of pervasive harassment and violence.

1995) (modification of custody); A. v. A., 15 Or. App. 353, 514 P.2d 358 (1973) (modification of custody); Blew v. Verta 420 Pa. Super. 528, 617 A.2d 31 (1992) (modification of custody); Stroman v. Williams, 291 S.C. 376, 353 S.E.2d 704 (App. 1987) (initial custody); Van Driel v. Van Driel 525 N.W.2d 37 (S.D. 1994) (modification of custody); Tucker v. Tucker, 910 P.2d 1209 (Utah 1996) (initial custody); Nickerson v. Nickerson., 158 Vt. 85, 605 A.2d 1331 (1992) (initial custody); Schuster v. Schuster, 90 Wn.2d 626, 585 P.2d 130 (1978) (modification of custody); M.S.P. v. P.E.P., 178 W. Va. 183, 358 S.E.2d 442 (1987) (initial custody). Contra S.E.G. v. R.A.G., 735 S.W.2d 164 (Mo.Ct.App. 1987); Dailey v. Dailey, 635 S.W.2d 391 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1981); Bottoms v. Bottoms, 249 Va. 410, 457 S.E.2d 102 (1995). We agree with Dr. Turnbow statement that "custody should be determined on individual character and parenting skills, and not on the basis of sexual preference."