Texas judge says lesbian couple can't cohabitate

[jimnyc]

Sure, it's unfair and unconstitutional. :rolleyes: But if a couple gets divorced, and 2 children are with Dad at the time, and he's having various ladies over, in front of the kids, people would obviously say it's detrimental to the children. There is NOTHING wrong with this law. Their beef is with the gay marriage laws, not this one. But since they can't get married, now they'll blame this law, which solely protects kids, regardless of genders. My advice to them - fight to get the marriage laws changed, not to change what is or isn't allowed in the house with children in a divorced family.


MCKINNEY, Texas - A judge has ruled that a North Texas lesbian couple can't live together because of a morality clause in one of the women's divorce papers.

The clause is common in divorce cases in Texas and other states. It prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home. If the couple marries, they can get out from under the legal provision — but that is not an option for gay couples in Texas, where such marriages aren't recognized.

The Dallas Morning News ( http://dallasne.ws/16MlSUQ) reported that in a divorce hearing last month for Carolyn and Joshua Compton, Collin County District Judge John Roach Jr. enforced the terms detailed in their 2011 divorce papers. He ordered Carolyn Compton's partner, Page Price, to move out of the home they shared with the Comptons' two daughters, ages 10 and 13. The judge gave Price 30 days to find another place to live.

Paul Key said his client, Joshua Compton, wanted the clause enforced for his kids' benefit.

"The fact that they can't get married in Texas is a legislative issue," Key said. "It's not really our issue."

The Comptons had been married for 11 years before their split. Carolyn Compton originally filed for divorce in September 2010.

Roach said the clause doesn't target same-sex couples, adding that the language is gender neutral.

"It's a general provision for the benefit of the children," the judge said.

Price and Carolyn Compton said in a statement that they believe the clause is unconstitutional. But they also said they would comply with the order "even though it will be disruptive to their family and has the potential of being harmful to the children."

They also said in the statement that the clause "is a burden on parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, that takes away and unreasonably limits their ability to make parental decisions of whom their children may be around and unreasonably limits what the United State Supreme Court has identified as the liberty of thought, belief and expression."

http://www.startribune.com/nation/208406411.html

[Missileman]

Sure, it's unfair and unconstitutional. :rolleyes: But if a couple gets divorced, and 2 children are with Dad at the time, and he's having various ladies over, in front of the kids, people would obviously say it's detrimental to the children. There is NOTHING wrong with this law. Their beef is with the gay marriage laws, not this one. But since they can't get married, now they'll blame this law, which solely protects kids, regardless of genders. My advice to them - fight to get the marriage laws changed, not to change what is or isn't allowed in the house with children in a divorced family.



http://www.startribune.com/nation/208406411.html

How did one turn into various? The law hasn't a damned thing to do with protecting kids, otherwise it would be illegal for unmarried people who happen to have kids to have romantic sleepovers. The state has no business intruding into the bedroom.

[Kathianne]

How did one turn into various? The law hasn't a damned thing to do with protecting kids, otherwise it would be illegal for unmarried people who happen to have kids to have romantic sleepovers. The state has no business intruding into the bedroom.

Actually my divorce decree prohibited just that. Pretty standard issue. Didn't stop my ex, however his behavior did land him with a year of no unsupervised visitation, when demonstrated that said behavior caused 'precocious sexual behaviors,' in not one, but two children. The third child testified to being uncomfortable being with father.

[jimnyc]

How did one turn into various? The law hasn't a damned thing to do with protecting kids, otherwise it would be illegal for unmarried people who happen to have kids to have romantic sleepovers. The state has no business intruding into the bedroom.

It was an example. The point is, these things have been being used and legal for many, many years. A couple have a child, or children, and it's simply not good for the kid to see one of their parents getting warm and fuzzy with someone else, in another home, who they aren't married to. I think it is protecting the kids, and good for them. The state may not have a business in the bedroom, but they have always had a business of trying to protect children, especially so in divorced families. I can verify this first hand based on counselors and state people visiting us 4 kids when my parents got divorced. They seemed less interested in their divorce and much more interested in the well being of us kids. Any divorce case I have ever monitored, where kids were involved, the courts tended to almost always think of the kids first and their well being, long before the desires of the parents.

I wouldn't say 'illegal' necessary, but then again it is - that's exactly what the judge ruled. that he doesn't want an unmarried couple, with kids involved, having romantic partners spending the night. While this case is forcing the woman to leave, if you read, it states:


The clause is common in divorce cases in Texas and other states. It prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home.

So in a sense, it IS preventing people from having romantic sleepovers. But in this case, they changed their sleepover into permanent conditions.

[jimnyc]

Actually my divorce decree prohibited just that. Pretty standard issue. Didn't stop my ex, however his behavior did land him with a year of no unsupervised visitation, when demonstrated that said behavior caused 'precocious sexual behaviors,' in not one, but two children. The third child testified to being uncomfortable being with father.

I'm reading more on it now, and it's seems like common sense to me, but more importantly it does seem to be standard in some places. Take all the legalities aside. You have 2 parents, 45 years old apiece. You have 2 kids, one 5 and one 6, one boy and one girl. Shit happens and couples get divorced. But the kids should still be raised appropriately, and hopefully with morals and such. While I know it's happening less and less, I would still teach my children that they should wait till they are married before living together. What we teach our kids, what we think is best for them, doesn't go out the window when divorces happen.

I'd like to hear more about the divorce and how it was handled. If it were in the divorce papers, both parents likely agreed to it in the best interest of the kids.

[BillyBob]

In a free society the government would never presume to dictate to the citizenry who they can and cannot sleep with.

[jimnyc]

In a free society the government would never presume to dictate to the citizenry who they can and cannot sleep with.

In THIS case, I don't think they are. I think they are dictating that they shouldn't be doing certain things, or being together for overnight visits, unless they are married. This is dictating what they think is in the best interest of the children, not dictating who they can sleep with. It's not like the judge said their relationship couldn't continue.

If you really narrow it down, the judge is simply enforcing a contract that both parties and the courts agreed to.

[BillyBob]

In THIS case, I don't think they are. I think they are dictating that they shouldn't be doing certain things, or being together for overnight visits, unless they are married. This is dictating what they think is in the best interest of the children, not dictating who they can sleep with. It's not like the judge said their relationship couldn't continue.

If you really narrow it down, the judge is simply enforcing a contract that both parties and the courts agreed to.

If they agreed to it, then he certainly has the authority to enforce a contract.


But the government has no authority to dictate to parents how they will raise their children. I realize they would love to have that authority and often illegally take that authority.

[Kathianne]

How did one turn into various? The law hasn't a damned thing to do with protecting kids, otherwise it would be illegal for unmarried people who happen to have kids to have romantic sleepovers. The state has no business intruding into the bedroom.

Unless they want to allow for ex to have true sole custody with no visitation, they do have cause. It's not up to the ex to find this stuff, but it is up to the courts to protect the children.

Shocker, kids do not want parents to divorce.

When one spouse wants out because of another love interest, the kids shouldn't be caught up in that. Whether hetero or homo. Kids just don't need that.

[jimnyc]

If they agreed to it, then he certainly has the authority to enforce a contract.

But the government has no authority to dictate to parents how they will raise their children. I realize they would love to have that authority and often illegally take that authority.

Well, maybe not dictate, but they do have the right to intervene if there is something going on that might be detrimental to the kids. But that's an entirely different discussion. But yeah, in this case, it states in the beginning of the article that this was in their divorce papers. A divorce is really nothing more than a contract. Whether they like it or not, or if we like it or not, it's a contract and the judge upheld that clause.

Parents need to have a clean home or apartment. They need to be able to provide food. They need to be able to provide appropriate bedding. These are all forms of 'raising' our children, but when a divorce occurs, the state often gets involved with things such as that to ensure the children are being cared for in BOTH homes.

Some of the stuff that my poor Mom went through, via the State when they got divorced, must have been humiliating, time consuming and just overall a pain in the ass. But these counselors and court people, they wanted 300% assurance that the kids came first and that life didn't change too awfully much for us (if that's even possible). And for the same reason as this article, and simply because it was good for us kids, my Dad's new girlfriend/fiancee/wife never stayed at the home, until after they were married.

[Kathianne]

Well, maybe not dictate, but they do have the right to intervene if there is something going on that might be detrimental to the kids. But that's an entirely different discussion. But yeah, in this case, it states in the beginning of the article that this was in their divorce papers. A divorce is really nothing more than a contract. Whether they like it or not, or if we like it or not, it's a contract and the judge upheld that clause.

Parents need to have a clean home or apartment. They need to be able to provide food. They need to be able to provide appropriate bedding. These are all forms of 'raising' our children, but when a divorce occurs, the state often gets involved with things such as that to ensure the children are being cared for in BOTH homes.

Some of the stuff that my poor Mom went through, via the State when they got divorced, must have been humiliating, time consuming and just overall a pain in the ass. But these counselors and court people, they wanted 300% assurance that the kids came first and that life didn't change too awfully much for us (if that's even possible). And for the same reason as this article, and simply because it was good for us kids, my Dad's new girlfriend/fiancee/wife never stayed at the home, until after they were married.

Funny thing, when 'cheating' is involved, seldom is the cheater the one with the kids. The only time the 'cheater' needs to curtail extra behaviors is when the kids are visiting.

That may not have been the case with the lesbian couple, but seems the male in the equation had been blindsided, what to do with that?

[BillyBob]

Well, maybe not dictate, but they do have the right to intervene if there is something going on that might be detrimental to the kids. But that's an entirely different discussion.


Yes it is. As a homeschool parent [or just a parent] I would enjoy a discussion about that very subject. If that is something that interests you, start a thread and I'd be an active participant.

[fj1200]

I'm reading more on it now, and it's seems like common sense to me, but more importantly it does seem to be standard in some places.

It seems to me that the clause could be removed if it's against public policy. Long-term cohabitation is different than a one-night stand.

[jimnyc]

It seems to me that the clause could be removed if it's against public policy. Long-term cohabitation is different than a one-night stand.

Perhaps, but I don't think they challenged the clause, but rather the father went to court for enforcement. And being it's Texas, I don't think it's against their policy. But suppose you are the one fighting the clause, how do you present your case to the court? You cant argue for long term cohabitation if you haven't even lived with someone at all yet. You technically can't have the overnights, as it's ruled against, or in the contract. I think the only way is to either be married, or fight the constitutionality of the clause itself. Considering the way courts bend over backwards to protect kids, I am doubting they would rule in their favor. I still say their best bet is to go after gay marriage. Or maybe not enter contracts that forbids the sleepovers prior to marriage!

[fj1200]

Perhaps, but I don't think they challenged the clause, but rather the father went to court for enforcement. And being it's Texas, I don't think it's against their policy. But suppose you are the one fighting the clause, how do you present your case to the court? You cant argue for long term cohabitation if you haven't even lived with someone at all yet. You technically can't have the overnights, as it's ruled against, or in the contract. I think the only way is to either be married, or fight the constitutionality of the clause itself. Considering the way courts bend over backwards to protect kids, I am doubting they would rule in their favor. I still say their best bet is to go after gay marriage. Or maybe not enter contracts that forbids the sleepovers prior to marriage!

I don't like "constitutionality of the clause," it constitutionalizes (a new term I heard tonight on the PBS series about the Constitution) rights and I think we've Constitutionalized too many rights. I don't think they would necessarily need to go either of those routes to challenge it. A clause that is against public policy is invalid but that assumes things about TX and whether straight cohabitation is acceptable or whether the couple is just "shacking up" rather than some sort of long-term thing.

[Missileman]

Unless they want to allow for ex to have true sole custody with no visitation, they do have cause. It's not up to the ex to find this stuff, but it is up to the courts to protect the children.

Shocker, kids do not want parents to divorce.

When one spouse wants out because of another love interest, the kids shouldn't be caught up in that. Whether hetero or homo. Kids just don't need that.

There's no law that says a single parent can't have a romantic partner sleep over with children in the home. Unequal protection under the law = unconstitutional. The divorce is a done deal, so the kids not wanting it is moot. I didn't see anything in the story about whether the ex-wife found her new love interest before or after the divorce, but that's a moot issue too.

[Missileman]

Well, maybe not dictate, but they do have the right to intervene if there is something going on that might be detrimental to the kids. But that's an entirely different discussion. But yeah, in this case, it states in the beginning of the article that this was in their divorce papers. A divorce is really nothing more than a contract. Whether they like it or not, or if we like it or not, it's a contract and the judge upheld that clause.

There are some states who put shite into a divorce agreement automatically that wasn't desired by either party. IIRC, there was talk in another thread about Cali automatically filing orders of protection against both even if divorce is amicable and that OOP would prohibit gun ownership in the future.

[jimnyc]

I don't like "constitutionality of the clause," it constitutionalizes (a new term I heard tonight on the PBS series about the Constitution) rights and I think we've Constitutionalized too many rights. I don't think they would necessarily need to go either of those routes to challenge it. A clause that is against public policy is invalid but that assumes things about TX and whether straight cohabitation is acceptable or whether the couple is just "shacking up" rather than some sort of long-term thing.

It is standard to not allow it of straight couples as well. Like the article said, the clause and other similar are neutral in that regard. While I agree with you in theoru about long term or shacking up - think about it... You can't say that at the beginning of a relationship, as how can one say it's going to be long term? And based on the clause, you can't have a test trial, and if after say 6 months to a year, then change the clause.

Keep in mind, as a judge, you're looking into what is in the best interest of a child. I don't think many would argue and say IT IS good for a kid to see their parent having a boyfriend/girlfriend spending nights. Maybe if they are only together without the kids for a certain amount of time, and have established that 'long term' relationship, then they might have a better fight. Maybe have your 'date' there on nights without the kids, but slowly integrate that person into their lives in a manner that they can understand and accept.

[fj1200]

It is standard to not allow it of straight couples as well. Like the article said, the clause and other similar are neutral in that regard. While I agree with you in theoru about long term or shacking up - think about it... You can't say that at the beginning of a relationship, as how can one say it's going to be long term? And based on the clause, you can't have a test trial, and if after say 6 months to a year, then change the clause.

Keep in mind, as a judge, you're looking into what is in the best interest of a child. I don't think many would argue and say IT IS good for a kid to see their parent having a boyfriend/girlfriend spending nights. Maybe if they are only together without the kids for a certain amount of time, and have established that 'long term' relationship, then they might have a better fight. Maybe have your 'date' there on nights without the kids, but slowly integrate that person into their lives in a manner that they can understand and accept.

I understand, I was thinking straight, long-term. I just find it odd that the clause would be so strictly enforced and if there are standards that are applied to it. Also, if it's a family court making a simple decision that could be appealed.

[BillyBob]

Keep in mind, as a judge, you're looking into what is in the best interest of a child. I don't think many would argue and say IT IS good for a kid to see their parent having a boyfriend/girlfriend spending nights. Maybe if they are only together without the kids for a certain amount of time, and have established that 'long term' relationship, then they might have a better fight. Maybe have your 'date' there on nights without the kids, but slowly integrate that person into their lives in a manner that they can understand and accept.


That is far too subjective to allow the government to decide. Think about how far in either direction a legislator or judge could take that. You're basically handing over parental decisions to the government.

[fj1200]

That is far too subjective to allow the government to decide. Think about how far in either direction a legislator or judge could take that. You're basically handing over parental decisions to the government.

The parents handed that over when they inserted the clause into their divorce agreement. I would expect nothing less in a contract dispute.

[jimnyc]

There are some states who put shite into a divorce agreement automatically that wasn't desired by either party. IIRC, there was talk in another thread about Cali automatically filing orders of protection against both even if divorce is amicable and that OOP would prohibit gun ownership in the future.

Perhaps, but I would assume attorneys, and the parents themselves, had ample time to read the contracts prior to the finalization. Whether their by one of the parents, or the courts, it's in the child's best interest, and does form a contract when the divorce is final. Whether a gay couple or not is actually irrelevant. The court likely would have and should have given the same decision if it were straight couples involved. It's in the children's best interest and it's part of a contract, double whammy. This, I believe, has various names throughout the nation, from 'paramour provision' to 'overnight guests. But they have long been enforced before this lesbian couple, and IMO, for good reason.

[BillyBob]

The parents handed that over when they inserted the clause into their divorce agreement. I would expect nothing less in a contract dispute.

That was a mistake on their part. But is that how the contract reads, 'What is in the best interest of a child'?

[jimnyc]

That is far too subjective to allow the government to decide. Think about how far in either direction a legislator or judge could take that. You're basically handing over parental decisions to the government.

When there are problems, or abuse in a family, or just 2 parents pulling at both sides of a child - then it's important that someone intervene on the child's behalf. Granted I can see what you're saying - but if they don't allow the courts to look out for their best interest, especially in divorce cases, then who is?

[fj1200]

That was a mistake on their part. But is that how the contract reads, 'What is in the best interest of a child'?

Mistake or not, I'm guessing they made many, it's not government imposing itself.

[jimnyc]

That was a mistake on their part. But is that how the contract reads, 'What is in the best interest of a child'?

I have been using that wording. The clause was about overnight guests. I further added that the courts have always taken the interests of children first and parents second. It's simply a common phrase, whether courts or in schools, counselors and such, that they advocate for what is in the best interest of a child.

[BillyBob]

When there are problems, or abuse in a family, or just 2 parents pulling at both sides of a child - then it's important that someone intervene on the child's behalf. Granted I can see what you're saying - but if they don't allow the courts to look out for their best interest, especially in divorce cases, then who is?

Every family has problems and 2 parents pulling on both sides is obviously not optimal, but how can either of those be seen as illegal? And if it's a case of abuse [again, we have a case of subjectivism] I would rather see other family members or the church or friends step in. This gives the already overbearing government far too much control and it's only going to get worse. It always gets worse.

If you allow the government to define 'abuse', they will say that homeschooling is abuse. They will say that raising your children as Christians is abuse. They will say that raising your children as conservatives is abuse. They will say that raising your children to distrust the government is abuse. They will say that raising your children in a home where guns are present is abuse. They will say that allowing you children to watch Fox News is abuse. And on and on.....

And what is in the best interest of a child in the eyes of the government? That's even scarier.

[BillyBob]

Mistake or not, I'm guessing they made many, it's not government imposing itself.

I understand.

[DragonStryk72]

Sure, it's unfair and unconstitutional. :rolleyes: But if a couple gets divorced, and 2 children are with Dad at the time, and he's having various ladies over, in front of the kids, people would obviously say it's detrimental to the children. There is NOTHING wrong with this law. Their beef is with the gay marriage laws, not this one. But since they can't get married, now they'll blame this law, which solely protects kids, regardless of genders. My advice to them - fight to get the marriage laws changed, not to change what is or isn't allowed in the house with children in a divorced family.



http://www.startribune.com/nation/208406411.html

That law does NOT protect kids. Kids of divorced parents need to see their parents pick themselves up after a divorce. What precise thing does it "protect" them from? Their parent... HAVING A LIFE?! Perish the thought.

The law is a direct violation of both the 4th and 8th amendment. I have an inherent to decide when my kids are ready to have my girlfriend spend the night, and the court has no right to interfere in my dating life.

But of course, they slapped "for the children" on it to keep parents from applying actual thought.

So here's a question: Why is the court discriminating against divorcees? Cause apparently, if you just knocked a woman up, you are free to do as you wish, but suddenly, after a divorce, its"harmful" to the children.

[BillyBob]

That law does NOT protect kids. Kids of divorced parents need to see their parents pick themselves up after a divorce. What precise thing does it "protect" them from? Their parent... HAVING A LIFE?! Perish the thought.

The law is a direct violation of both the 4th and 8th amendment. I have an inherent to decide when my kids are ready to have my girlfriend spend the night, and the court has no right to interfere in my dating life.

But of course, they slapped "for the children" on it to keep parents from applying actual thought.

Welcome to modern liberalism.


So here's a question: Why is the court discriminating against divorcees? Cause apparently, if you just knocked a woman up, you are free to do as you wish, but suddenly, after a divorce, its"harmful" to the children.


This is what happens when people seek the government's approval and permission to get married. The gays are in for a big surprise.

[jimnyc]

I understand if some disagree with what happened to this couple, or disagree with my stance. Not like it's a new concept around here! But let me ask then. If this law doesn't protect kids, or isn't meant to protect kids, then what is it for? To be punitive to the parents? Towards the kids? For all the years and years and years that these provisions have been around, I can't seem to locate a single case that was overturned by law or being unconstitutional (redundant?). If meant to protect kids, but doesn't, then again, why barely a change after so many years and why are such provisions still in use? I also searched for simple complaints, and other than this lesbian case, I can't even find divorced couples claiming that this is in any way detrimental to their children.

Some will look at this and be upset about their parenting rights, it's unfair, doesn't protect the kids. Yet there are probably thousands and thousands if not into the millions of cases, where kids don't receive appropriate parenting in divorced households. Do we wait until there is an issue, and then call family services types of authorities? Or do courts and parents agree on some standards in divorce cases that appear to have some sort of custody to both?

I'll be talking to my Dad at about 10ish this morn and will find out more from him how this was laid out, and how it was worded, if at all.

[Noir]

Wow, that's a pretty terrible clause.

Their are many reasons why people would want to live together (especially financial) and more reasons still why one (or two) people in a relationship would want not marry.

Also, how would this work out if their never was a marriage?
i.e. two people live together and never marry but do have children, are the courts saying thats wrong? If those parents then break up will one of them have to marry if they want to co-habit again? (And see their children)

Also, i assume this claus only applies to the parent that the child visits for weekend stays, and mot the on they live with?

[jimnyc]

Wow, that's a pretty terrible clause.

Their are many reasons why people would want to live together (especially financial) and more reasons still why one (or two) people in a relationship would want not marry.

Also, how would this work out if their never was a marriage?
i.e. two people live together and never marry but do have children, are the courts saying thats wrong? If those parents then break up will one of them have to marry if they want to co-habit again? (And see their children)

Also, i assume this claus only applies to the parent that the child visits for weekend stays, and mot the on they live with?

Oh man, just after 6am here and I have to deal with you already! LOL

People may want to live together for financial reasons, or other reasons without getting married. I get that and am not judging that portion. But I do think that these reasons may not be healthy for the child. My Dad started dating again, if you want to call it that, when I was about 12. It was rough on me for awhile, trying to accept a new woman in his life while Mom was now gone. It took me a good 5 years to accept her. I probably would never have if she would have immediately been staying overnight in Dad's room. Mom also got a boyfriend, albeit about a couple years after the divorce. Man, I thought that was brutal, as he visited when we were visiting Mom and I did NOT like him, but he was like 6'4 and about 250! I understood that life went on for them, but inside I know I was hoping that someday they would get back together. Watching them move on, right under my nose, was a bit hard. I think watching them have overnights would have been much more difficult.

Of course there are loopholes. If never a marriage, just kids and therefore never a divorce - then the odds of having overnight visitors, without courts having a say, would obviously skyrocket. BUT, I'm betting that if one of the parents went to court, with a minor child that is in dual custody, a judge wouldn't have a problem granting a similar provision until the child is of age. There are TONS of reasons why family services get involved in divorce situations, and sometimes it takes people calling them instead of courts naturally having a say as in divorce proceedings. But just because dysfunctional or out of wedlock scenarios happen, is no reason to just allow similar circumstances for the others.

These clauses generally apply to BOTH parents, not just the weekends. They can have equal custody, weekends, just summers.... The provision is to protect the children, whether at their permanent home or a temporary one with their other parent.

Some kids take to their parents new BF/GF - but asking them to spend the evening is a different ballgame. If anyone thinks this stuff doesn't or wouldn't affect a child, likely either isn't married or hasn't been through divorce. I would NEVER want to have another woman spend a night with me with my son in the house. He loves and adores his Mom and I simply don't think it's fair or sets good standards for him.

[Noir]

Oh man, just after 6am here and I have to deal with you already! LOL

People may want to live together for financial reasons, or other reasons without getting married. I get that and am not judging that portion. But I do think that these reasons may not be healthy for the child. My Dad started dating again, if you want to call it that, when I was about 12. It was rough on me for awhile, trying to accept a new woman in his life while Mom was now gone. It took me a good 5 years to accept her. I probably would never have if she would have immediately been staying overnight in Dad's room. Mom also got a boyfriend, albeit about a couple years after the divorce. Man, I thought that was brutal, as he visited when we were visiting Mom and I did NOT like him, but he was like 6'4 and about 250! I understood that life went on for them, but inside I know I was hoping that someday they would get back together. Watching them move on, right under my nose, was a bit hard. I think watching them have overnights would have been much more difficult.

Of course there are loopholes. If never a marriage, just kids and therefore never a divorce - then the odds of having overnight visitors, without courts having a say, would obviously skyrocket. BUT, I'm betting that if one of the parents went to court, with a minor child that is in dual custody, a judge wouldn't have a problem granting a similar provision until the child is of age. There are TONS of reasons why family services get involved in divorce situations, and sometimes it takes people calling them instead of courts naturally having a say as in divorce proceedings. But just because dysfunctional or out of wedlock scenarios happen, is no reason to just allow similar circumstances for the others.

These clauses generally apply to BOTH parents, not just the weekends. They can have equal custody, weekends, just summers.... The provision is to protect the children, whether at their permanent home or a temporary one with their other parent.

Some kids take to their parents new BF/GF - but asking them to spend the evening is a different ballgame. If anyone thinks this stuff doesn't or wouldn't affect a child, likely either isn't married or hasn't been through divorce. I would NEVER want to have another woman spend a night with me with my son in the house. He loves and adores his Mom and I simply don't think it's fair or sets good standards for him.

And do you think the courts should of forced your dad to not date when you were 12?

This is the most ramshackled type of law. Precisely because 'marriage' is some sort of pass card. Would it of made any difference to you if a month after meeting your father and new partner went down to the civic hall to sign some papers? Would that of been better?

If anything i'd say that could make things much worse, it inclines people to rush into a marriage, to secure being able to see their children, then suddenly 'daddy has a new wife' out of nowhere, great for the kid, right?

And speaking as a child of divorced parents myself, i'm in the 'this stuff doesn't affect the child' camp.

[jimnyc]

And do you think the courts should of forced your dad to not date when you were 12?

This is the most ramshackled type of law. Precisely because 'marriage' is some sort of pass card. Would it of made any difference to you if a month after meeting your father and new partner went down to the civic hall to sign some papers? Would that of been better?

If anything i'd say that could make things much worse, it inclines people to rush into a marriage, to secure being able to see their children, then suddenly 'daddy has a new wife' out of nowhere, great for the kid, right?

And speaking as a child of divorced parents myself, i'm in the 'this stuff doesn't affect the child' camp.

I don't think they should have forced him not to date, but that's different than not allowing overnight visits from a girlfriend. Like I said, maybe if dating after a certain amount of time, and counselors say the kids are cool with it, then stop the provision and allow it. That I would be cool with. When my parents got divorced, we visited the counselor at the courts and also had her visit our home several times. They were very interested in what we wanted and what our concerns were. I think I was nearing a more understandable age, and my siblings are all older than me. But this is even more magnified of you have very young children, like under 10 or so. Honestly though, I don't think one size fits all, I suppose each case is a tad different.

As for the papers, I don't know. In the eyes of the law they would have been married at least. And it's a LOT easier for a parent to explain to their child that they are forming a 'permanent' bond with someone and getting married again, as opposed to trying to explain to children that you're just having a partner spend a night here and there.

You can say it doesn't affect the child, and I believe you 100% that in your case it didn't. But there are millions of kids who go through divorces each year. Just because you or I could deal and it might not bother us, doesn't mean that other kids might not be adversely affected. Again, if it was THAT bad, it would have been something that disappeared a long, long time ago, but yet it thrives. Some will say it doesn't help the kids or it wouldn't matter, others will say it's a good idea and kids shouldn't be in positions to deal with this. It would be VERY unwise to treat each and every case and child identically. What worked for you could be traumatizing for other children.

[taft2012]

they do have the right to intervene if there is something going on that might be detrimental to the kids. .

Of course.

Listen, what you're dealing with here is simply another characteristic the pothead conservatives/faux libertarians share with liberals: the knee-jerk reaction.

This is symptomatic with the Randians in particular, who for some reason take completely diametrical opposite positions to any evil they perceive. Their argument is that "well, look, we're as far away from the evil as possible, so that makes us good."

In terms of logic, it's infantile at best. In terms of reality, it's insanity.

If total government control is evil, then the only acceptable remedy is zero government control.
If zero liberty is evil, then 100% liberty is the only acceptable remedy.

There are obvious problems with both their math and their logic.

[Missileman]

I understand if some disagree with what happened to this couple, or disagree with my stance. Not like it's a new concept around here! But let me ask then. If this law doesn't protect kids, or isn't meant to protect kids, then what is it for? To be punitive to the parents? Towards the kids? For all the years and years and years that these provisions have been around, I can't seem to locate a single case that was overturned by law or being unconstitutional (redundant?). If meant to protect kids, but doesn't, then again, why barely a change after so many years and why are such provisions still in use? I also searched for simple complaints, and other than this lesbian case, I can't even find divorced couples claiming that this is in any way detrimental to their children.

Some will look at this and be upset about their parenting rights, it's unfair, doesn't protect the kids. Yet there are probably thousands and thousands if not into the millions of cases, where kids don't receive appropriate parenting in divorced households. Do we wait until there is an issue, and then call family services types of authorities? Or do courts and parents agree on some standards in divorce cases that appear to have some sort of custody to both?

I'll be talking to my Dad at about 10ish this morn and will find out more from him how this was laid out, and how it was worded, if at all.

In the absence of a similar law for single parents, the only reasonable conclusion is indeed that the law exists only to harrass divorcees.

[fj1200]

In the absence of a similar law for single parents, the only reasonable conclusion is indeed that the law exists only to harrass divorcees.

More likely divorcees to harass each other.

[jimnyc]

In the absence of a similar law for single parents, the only reasonable conclusion is indeed that the law exists only to harrass divorcees.

It's not a law, it's contracts. And it CAN also be applied to single parents who never married, but it would take a parent taking the matter to court and applying for a TRO or similar. Again, NOT a law, but contractual provisions intended to protect children, whether you agree with it or not. They call it the paramour provision, overnight guests, some states call it a morality clause. Some are placed in there by the courts and many are placed in there by the parents themselves. From all the reading I've done last night and this morning, it's commonplace in many states and the judges take them very, very seriously. I've read of several cases already, where for example a husband cheated on his wife. Before or after a divorce, the wife petitions for a TRO preventing the husband from having any gals over while the kids are present. Judges more often than not will grant them.

[jimnyc]

More likely divorcees to harass each other.

I'm sure some do that too. But most people, including in this thread, tend to look at the divorcees and what they should and shouldn't be able to do, and look less and less into what is best for the child in question. I'm not saying these parents don't care, or that anyone here doesn't, but the welfare of the child, physically and mentally, should come LONG before the parents desires.

[DragonStryk72]

I understand if some disagree with what happened to this couple, or disagree with my stance. Not like it's a new concept around here! But let me ask then. If this law doesn't protect kids, or isn't meant to protect kids, then what is it for? To be punitive to the parents? Towards the kids? For all the years and years and years that these provisions have been around, I can't seem to locate a single case that was overturned by law or being unconstitutional (redundant?). If meant to protect kids, but doesn't, then again, why barely a change after so many years and why are such provisions still in use? I also searched for simple complaints, and other than this lesbian case, I can't even find divorced couples claiming that this is in any way detrimental to their children.

Some will look at this and be upset about their parenting rights, it's unfair, doesn't protect the kids. Yet there are probably thousands and thousands if not into the millions of cases, where kids don't receive appropriate parenting in divorced households. Do we wait until there is an issue, and then call family services types of authorities? Or do courts and parents agree on some standards in divorce cases that appear to have some sort of custody to both?

I'll be talking to my Dad at about 10ish this morn and will find out more from him how this was laid out, and how it was worded, if at all.

Oh no, its *meant* to protect the kids, just like the soda ban is meant to protect your health and your kids health, Jim. its just doesn't accomplish its intent.

This law does nothing to mitigate bad parenting, and in fact, could cut off a potential third party that could make the situation better, and be a help to the kids. Or has no one ever gotten together with someone who was better with kids than?

As to why its around, likely the same reason that the law here in Norfolk requiring women to wear corsets in public is still around. It was made in a time when the law made sense, but wasn't changed with the times. And BTW, it IS being challenged, or we wouldn't be having this talk.

[jimnyc]

Oh no, its *meant* to protect the kids, just like the soda ban is meant to protect your health and your kids health, Jim. its just doesn't accomplish its intent.

This law does nothing to mitigate bad parenting, and in fact, could cut off a potential third party that could make the situation better, and be a help to the kids. Or has no one ever gotten together with someone who was better with kids than?

As to why its around, likely the same reason that the law here in Norfolk requiring women to wear corsets in public is still around. It was made in a time when the law made sense, but wasn't changed with the times. And BTW, it IS being challenged, or we wouldn't be having this talk.

Sure, challenge it. The only challenges I can really find, are parents bringing the other to court for not following the divorce papers, and the judges always uphold the agreements/contract.

Does it work as intended every time? Probably not, but what DOES work for every single child? Again though, it's not a law, but provisions that can be set by parents or courts. One's recourse is to not place it in the papers, have their attorney fight it at the proceedings or fight it down the road like they want to do now. Either that, or find a way to have such provisions banned.

I'm of the belief that this will help kids in MANY more situations than it will hurt. Hell, I'm betting its 'static' in more times than it hurts kids. (meaning no effect, but still in place).

Back to my nutshell, if people REALLY feel this way, then don't include in the papers or don't sign off on them if you disagree, or until it's hashed out and removed. But don't sign a contract and then complain a couple of years down the road.

[BillyBob]

Of course.

Listen, what you're dealing with here is simply another characteristic the pothead conservatives/faux libertarians share with liberals: the knee-jerk reaction.

This is symptomatic with the Randians in particular, who for some reason take completely diametrical opposite positions to any evil they perceive. Their argument is that "well, look, we're as far away from the evil as possible, so that makes us good."

In terms of logic, it's infantile at best. In terms of reality, it's insanity.

If total government control is evil, then the only acceptable remedy is zero government control.
If zero liberty is evil, then 100% liberty is the only acceptable remedy.

There are obvious problems with both their math and their logic.


You couldn't be more wrong. But at least you are consistent.

But I do find it interesting that you support a bigger, more intrusive government than most of the posters here yet you wanna call THEM liberal.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't think they should have forced him not to date, but that's different than not allowing overnight visits from a girlfriend. Like I said, maybe if dating after a certain amount of time, and counselors say the kids are cool with it, then stop the provision and allow it. That I would be cool with. When my parents got divorced, we visited the counselor at the courts and also had her visit our home several times. They were very interested in what we wanted and what our concerns were. I think I was nearing a more understandable age, and my siblings are all older than me. But this is even more magnified of you have very young children, like under 10 or so. Honestly though, I don't think one size fits all, I suppose each case is a tad different.

As for the papers, I don't know. In the eyes of the law they would have been married at least. And it's a LOT easier for a parent to explain to their child that they are forming a 'permanent' bond with someone and getting married again, as opposed to trying to explain to children that you're just having a partner spend a night here and there.

You can say it doesn't affect the child, and I believe you 100% that in your case it didn't. But there are millions of kids who go through divorces each year. Just because you or I could deal and it might not bother us, doesn't mean that other kids might not be adversely affected. Again, if it was THAT bad, it would have been something that disappeared a long, long time ago, but yet it thrives. Some will say it doesn't help the kids or it wouldn't matter, others will say it's a good idea and kids shouldn't be in positions to deal with this. It would be VERY unwise to treat each and every case and child identically. What worked for you could be traumatizing for other children.

Um... Jim, co-habitate means "live with", so if you were divorced in Texas, your kids couldn't stay over if your fiancee (aka the woman you're about to marry.) lives with you. As another child of divorce, again, doesn't do shit, it depends on how the parents handle the divorce, not whether they start dating again. Fuck, in the case of most divorces, it's the parents who do the most damage to the kids, especially if its a really nasty divorce. So according to the logic, shouldn't your kids be taken away from you and your wife should a divorce occur? After all, it's provably in the "best interest" of the children.

For instance, the brisk 20 years of constant fighting between my mom and dad does far more damage than "Oh, dad's dating again", period. It isn't, and shouldn't be, the court's business to decide my family's life, over and above the objections of both myself, and the children's mother.

Were you some fragile little snowlflake when you were a kid? No. How many kids that you hung out with were fragile little snowflakes? Not many, I'm willing to bet. Why are kids suddenly fragile little snowflakes these days, that must be shut away from anything that has even the slight potential for possible harm? Have we become that much of a set of chicken shits in this country?

You're also ducking the question of why it is okay for the kids to be living with their unmarried father and his girlfriend that isn't their mom, but it somehow becomes harmful only in the case of divorce. Does marriage and divorce mystically rob children of spinal columns and the ability to cope? If so, then why are we allowing marriage in the first place, since they're obviously the weaker for it?

[Jeff]

Actually my divorce decree prohibited just that. Pretty standard issue. Didn't stop my ex, however his behavior did land him with a year of no unsupervised visitation, when demonstrated that said behavior caused 'precocious sexual behaviors,' in not one, but two children. The third child testified to being uncomfortable being with father.


Mine did also, I was living with Laura ( my current wife ) as I was going through my divorce and the judge said the only way I the kids could spend the night was if Laura wasn't there , now of course that was never told to my X who had custody of the boys but that was my fault her lawyer brought it up about my visitations and my lawyer was a idiot

[Jeff]

Wow, that's a pretty terrible clause.

Their are many reasons why people would want to live together (especially financial) and more reasons still why one (or two) people in a relationship would want not marry.

Also, how would this work out if their never was a marriage?
i.e. two people live together and never marry but do have children, are the courts saying thats wrong? If those parents then break up will one of them have to marry if they want to co-habit again? (And see their children)

Also, i assume this claus only applies to the parent that the child visits for weekend stays, and mot the on they live with?


Noir that was my argument exactly, the county I lived in at the time of the split with my X it seems like most couples weren't married , honestly I think I just got the shaft

And truth be told Laura as my fiance was a better role model for my kids than the X was and she still is, my oldest 24 is living with his mother not working and not looking cause Mom pays for everything for him just to keep him in SC ( he had moved down here with me was holding a job was engaged and had a child but Mommy made it too easy for him to run from responsibility ) now my 18 year old from the same marriage just graduated HS a week ago has a great paying job ( but travels a lot ) so he wants to do this until he can put enough money back to build a house then he will go back to school and get a job where he will work local and then him and his GF will get married and start a family , will it happen that way I don't know but he does have his head in the right direction , ooo mand yes he lived with me from a early age

[Kathianne]

There's no law that says a single parent can't have a romantic partner sleep over with children in the home. Unequal protection under the law = unconstitutional. The divorce is a done deal, so the kids not wanting it is moot. I didn't see anything in the story about whether the ex-wife found her new love interest before or after the divorce, but that's a moot issue too.

Actually it is quite standard, at least in IL. The issue arose in our case, when my two sons, ages 7 & 9 started to try to feel girls boobs, said it made boys, 'feel good.' For some reason, got a call from the school on that.

The boys repeated to counselors they were already seeing, but that was all that was coming out from them. Then the daughter, age 11, said that Daddy had his girlfriend over and they did things that made her uncomfortable on the couch. Seems they'd be watching television and the girlfriend was in lingerie and the lovebirds didn't see a problem with my daughter also being on the couch or the boys observing.

Yeah, he lost unsupervised visitation for a year, forced into parenting classes and psychological counseling.

[BillyBob]

Actually it is quite standard, at least in IL. The issue arose in our case, when my two sons, ages 7 & 9 started to try to feel girls boobs, said it made boys, 'feel good.'


Tell them that even at age 50 it'll still make em feel good.

[Kathianne]

Tell them that even at age 50 it'll still make em feel good.

Luckily the school nor parents were quick to call the police. It took major bucks to undo the damage, not laughing matter.

[BillyBob]

Luckily the school nor parents were quick to call the police. It took major bucks to undo the damage, not laughing matter.


I'm sorry about that, hopefully everything is worked out. I am glad to see it was handled without police involvement.


If it still bothers you, maybe you should feel some boobies, it seems to make everyone feel better!

[Kathianne]

I'm sorry about that, hopefully everything is worked out. I am glad to see it was handled without police involvement.


If it still bothers you, maybe you should feel some boobies, it seems to make everyone feel better!

It seems to have been worked out. However causing sexual precocity in children isn't funny, it's abuse. Funny thing, the 'girlfriend' that became a wife and later mother, apologized during my daughter's wedding, which was the weirdest thing ever. 'As a mom, I'm embarrassed how I acted back then.' She was 38 years old, pretty weird in my book.

Please tell me you and your wife don't think it's ok to do such in front of your kids.

[BillyBob]

It seems to have been worked out. However causing sexual precocity in children isn't funny, it's abuse.

Boys are sexually precocious with or without any of that stuff happening on their couch. There's no stopping it. But yeah, they shouldn't have seen that on their own couch, let them see it on somebody else's couch. Boys are different than girls.



Funny thing, the 'girlfriend' that became a wife and later mother, apologized during my daughter's wedding, which was the weirdest thing ever. 'As a mom, I'm embarrassed how I acted back then.' She was 38 years old, pretty weird in my book.

That is strange. But at least she apologized. [not much of a consolation, I know]




Please tell me you and your wife don't think it's ok to do such in front of your kids.

Oh, we don't do that kind of stuff anywhere. Kids or no kids.

[Kathianne]

Boys are sexually precocious with or without any of that stuff happening on their couch. There's no stopping it. But yeah, they shouldn't have seen that on their own couch, let them see it on somebody else's couch. Boys are different than girls.




That is strange. But at least she apologized. [not much of a consolation, I know]





Oh, we don't do that kind of stuff anywhere. Kids or no kids.

7-9 year old boys are not doing what my sons were doing, thus the court directives. I don't know what would have happened it the older daughter wasn't there to articulate what was going on.

[BillyBob]

7-9 year old boys are not doing what my sons were doing,

You'd be surprised.



thus the court directives. I don't know what would have happened it the older daughter wasn't there to articulate what was going on.

They shouldn't have been subjected to that.

[Kathianne]

You'd be surprised.




They shouldn't have been subjected to that.

I know what boys that age do at school. They don't knock little girls down and feel their chests. They don't.

You're right, the court and psychiatrist agreed.

[BillyBob]

I know what boys that age do at school. They don't knock little girls down and feel their chests. They don't.

At that age I was always a little more subtle than that. But getting your hands on girls is something most boys think about often, even at that age.



You're right, the court and psychiatrist agreed.

I'm glad they agreed with me, it shows they are very bright.

[Missileman]

Actually it is quite standard, at least in IL. The issue arose in our case, when my two sons, ages 7 & 9 started to try to feel girls boobs, said it made boys, 'feel good.' For some reason, got a call from the school on that.

The boys repeated to counselors they were already seeing, but that was all that was coming out from them. Then the daughter, age 11, said that Daddy had his girlfriend over and they did things that made her uncomfortable on the couch. Seems they'd be watching television and the girlfriend was in lingerie and the lovebirds didn't see a problem with my daughter also being on the couch or the boys observing.

Yeah, he lost unsupervised visitation for a year, forced into parenting classes and psychological counseling.

When I said single parent, I meant one who had never been married.

[jimnyc]

You're also ducking the question of why it is okay for the kids to be living with their unmarried father and his girlfriend that isn't their mom, but it somehow becomes harmful only in the case of divorce. Does marriage and divorce mystically rob children of spinal columns and the ability to cope? If so, then why are we allowing marriage in the first place, since they're obviously the weaker for it?


When I said single parent, I meant one who had never been married.

Sorry, Dragon, but if you look back you will see that I addressed it. It's covered as a contractual issue in many divorce proceedings. In cases of couples that have never married, single parents, they can still request the same of the court. I read of a few cases earlier where the courts issued a TRO against the Dad from having the sleepovers. You can't fault the courts for not requesting something of couples that they aren't aware are apart and had no court proceedings. But the court very well would intervene if a single parent requested. These aren't every divorce/separation of course, but if a judge grants the provision or TRO, I'm sure there is good reason for it. In some of the instances I had read about was because a cheating husband brought home new girls all the time, the ex didn't want the kids subjected to that and the judge issued a TRO. In the case that this thread started, it was something that courts place in certain divorce proceedings when they feel it's in the best interest of that child (not every divorce). An attorney has a right to hash that out with a judge prior to the party signing off and agreeing to it.

Maybe they'll stop this provision in the future, not sure. Maybe someone will have a higher court look at the constitutionality of such a provision. Until then, they are simply handled individual cases as contracts, or individual cases as TRO's. If you think judges shouldn't have the authority to tell someone how to raise their kids - try spending a day in family court and you may be shocked.

[Missileman]

Sorry, Dragon, but if you look back you will see that I addressed it. It's covered as a contractual issue in many divorce proceedings. In cases of couples that have never married, single parents, they can still request the same of the court. I read of a few cases earlier where the courts issued a TRO against the Dad from having the sleepovers. You can't fault the courts for not requesting something of couples that they aren't aware are apart and had no court proceedings. But the court very well would intervene if a single parent requested. These aren't every divorce/separation of course, but if a judge grants the provision or TRO, I'm sure there is good reason for it. In some of the instances I had read about was because a cheating husband brought home new girls all the time, the ex didn't want the kids subjected to that and the judge issued a TRO. In the case that this thread started, it was something that courts place in certain divorce proceedings when they feel it's in the best interest of that child (not every divorce). An attorney has a right to hash that out with a judge prior to the party signing off and agreeing to it.

Maybe they'll stop this provision in the future, not sure. Maybe someone will have a higher court look at the constitutionality of such a provision. Until then, they are simply handled individual cases as contracts, or individual cases as TRO's. If you think judges shouldn't have the authority to tell someone how to raise their kids - try spending a day in family court and you may be shocked.

Do you have a link to that case involving a non-divorced person? I'd like to read it.

[jimnyc]

Do you have a link to that case involving a non-divorced person? I'd like to read it.

Here is one I read where a TRO was granted to prevent Dad from having the guests, and upheld on appeal too. But this was a divorced couple, I need to find the other I read...


On May 19, 2000, Cheryl Harper, through counsel, filed a Petition for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Motion for Modification of Visitation seeking to prevent and restrict Fred Harper from exercising overnight visitation with his children "while a person of the opposite sex to whom said defendant is not married resides or is present overnight in the residence or structure where the visitation will occur." Among other assertions in the petition, it provided that "Petitioner avers that it is not in the best interest of the young and impressionable minor children referred to above that a parent sleep with a person to whom he is not married with the knowledge of and in the constructive presence of the minor children." Cheryl Harper further asserted in her petition that such a visit was planned for the weekend commencing May 19, 2000, the same day as the filing. Thus, she argued that there was not time for service of notice and a hearing, making immediate issuance of the TRO imperative. Cheryl Harper also requested that a show cause order issue for a hearing on a preliminary and permanent injunction and modification of the visitation order.

The trial court signed the TRO on the same day the petition was filed, enjoining Fred Harper from exercising visitation with his children on an overnight basis while a person of the opposite sex to whom he was not married was present. A hearing was set for June 6, 2000, more than ten days from the signing of the TRO, ordering Fred Harper to show cause why the preliminary and permanent injunction should not issue and the visitation judgment should not be modified with Cheryl Harper's requested restriction. The hour of issuance was not endorsed on the TRO.

On May 25, 2000, Fred Harper filed a Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order in which he also prayed for attorneys fees and costs. A hearing on his motion was also set for June 6, 2000.

Following the hearing and argument on June 6, 2000, the trial court denied Fred Harper's Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order and his request for attorney's fees and costs. The injunction was issued restraining and prohibiting "both parties to this proceeding from exercising overnight custody and/or visitation with the minor children born of their marriage while under the same roof, or in the same home with a person of the opposite sex to whom the parent in question is not related either by marriage or by blood." Further, it was ordered that the custody and visitation agreement be modified to include the restriction set forth in the injunction. It is from this judgment that Fred Harper appeals.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20012052777So2d1275_11933.xm l&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006

[jimnyc]

Do you have a link to that case involving a non-divorced person? I'd like to read it.

Still looking, but what I have found thus far is that even parents who were never married, and then no longer together, still need a custody agreement (in most cases), and it's in that agreement where you'll find the clauses.

[jimnyc]

Here's a good read, all opinion of course...

Legal: What You Can Control When Spouse's New Partner Spends the Night

No. It’s the resounding answer to the question: Should you have a member of the opposite sex spend the night while you are divorcing, or even newly divorced?

“If there are children involved, overnight guests are a no-no,” said Kathy Stafford, 50, relationship coach and author of “Relationship Remorse” (Eplanet Publishing) based in Charlotte, N.C. “Children do not and should not have to deal with an endless stream of ‘new dads’ or ‘new moms.’ If you want to have a sexual relationship with someone new, that's OK. Just don't do it with the kids at home.”

And in her opinion, it doesn’t matter how old they are. “Children of any age are traumatized enough by the separation of their parents. I know that a lot of my clients say, ‘But my kids are older and they understand about sex. They know I like to have a sexual relationship.’ While that might be true, just remember the example that you are setting is that it’s OK to have sex with people you aren’t married to. I think that is a bad example to set. Monkey see monkey do.”

But morality aside, there are more pressing legal implications to consider when entertaining overnight guests while your children are in the house, especially if you are just separated and dealing with custodial issues.

“It’s never a good idea, but not even for the moral reasons or even the kids. I am thinking of it from a litigious point of view. We have had many cases that we have surveilled and that can be brought to light during the litigation and can jeopardize child support,” said Thomas Martin, 63, a private investigator and former FBI agent from Newport Beach, Calif. “You have to remember, at least in California, if you have someone stay overnight for three nights, and they don’t have to be consecutive, that can be considered co-habitating.”

And if there is a clause in your agreement or divorce decree that ties alimony or child support to cohabitation or can financially penalize you for having another adult sharing your living space, all of that can be jeopardized. And it might also cause some problems with your custody of your children.

“I would caution the client in terms of custodial issues down the road that it is not good judgment if you start having a trail of people through your house,” agreed Judy Poller, partner and chair of the matrimonial department at Dreier LLP, a Manhattan-based law firm. “You are actually harming your child. And I would be concerned if there were such issues between the parents that there was always going to be a concern about whether there could be good joint decision making regarding the kids.”

Even if it isn’t a revolving door of men or women running through your bedroom, it makes a difference. A steady relationship so early on might also color your divorce. “Say you are with someone on a fixed basis, you will be asked by a psychologist to bring that person in for an evaluation in child custody hearings,” said Daniela E. Schreier, 37, a licensed clinical psychologist and assistant professor of the Chicago School based in Illinois, who has a background in forensics and works within the court system with custody evaluations. “This person has to come in to be evaluated. And we just had a case where an ex-husband came back and contested because his ex-wife hadn’t told the truth about the fact she was dating one man, and he had stayed over the house, spent weekends together and the kids were in his constant company. We had to reevaluate.”

While it doesn’t do much good to lie to the courts about having a significant relationship especially during separation, it might be even worse to keep it from your soon-to-be- ex, especially if that person has control issues. If the relationship was abusive at any level, sleeping with another person might be the trigger for more violence. “For the control-freak-soon-to-be-ex-husband, it can create heavy duty jealousy issues,” Martin said.

Rest here - http://www.divorce360.com/divorce-articles/after-divorce/parenting/spouse-having-sleepovers.aspx?artid=938

[BillyBob]

Still looking, but what I have found thus far is that even parents who were never married, and then no longer together, still need a custody agreement (in most cases), and it's in that agreement where you'll find the clauses.


Can anything be written into custody agreements? Like, oh I don't know, the mother has to seek psychiatric help, double her meds and be forced to wear a straight-jacket and muzzle during visitation?

My attorney might have missed out on that one.

[jimnyc]

Can anything be written into custody agreements? Like, oh I don't know, the mother has to seek psychiatric help, double her meds and be forced to wear a straight-jacket and muzzle during visitation?

My attorney might have missed out on that one.

:lol: You would be surprised! But keep in mind, the parties generally have to agree and a judge has to sign off on it.

[BillyBob]

:lol: You would be surprised! But keep in mind, the parties generally have to agree and a judge has to sign off on it.


If she was wearing that muzzle and straightjacket, she certainly wouldn't be able to object.

I need a better lawyer....