when there are minor children. I just read two cases about that where a judge ordered just that. I also found out that a co-worker, while losing the majority of custody of her kids, got an order from the court saying that her husband couldn't have members of the opposite sex that he was not related to spending the night unless they were married.
Is it just that morals are low in Western society?
2007-03-13 07:09:43 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Parenting
Hello Matti. Hello? Hello? Judges have ruled just that.
2007-03-13 07:18:33 · update #1
You must have some strict judges where you live. Though I do agree with that one some level. I know of judges who do not see a problem when a parent drinks to excess around a small child (5).
2007-03-13 07:18:17 · answer #1 · answered by applecrisp 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is rare to have a judge order that and many people have had orders like that overturned based on civil rights. Divorce brings a lot of hurt feelings and the idea of your ex having another relationship makes it worse. Ultimately, for the kids, the exes have to understand that they are still a family and still have to work together to raise the children, that means understanding and respecting that your ex-spouse may move on and fall in love. It is best for the kids that they learn that a broken heart can heal and that people can move on without it bringing armageddon. That means that mom or dad can have friends and lovers. People say that because this is America and while you can find two rulings like that there are many more that have been denied.
2007-03-13 14:29:26 · answer #2 · answered by Huggles-the-wise 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My husband's ex took us to court over this before him and I were married. We were living together and when his ex found out, she FLIPPED out into a jealous rage and literally took us to court over it. Which is weird, since she was seeing two different men and they spent the night all the time at her place. But whatever.
The judge basically told her she had no real case at all and dismissed all of it, telling her that she needed to prioritize other things in her life instead of worrying that her ex was having sex or living with someone. The judge basically told her to grow up. It was actually rather humorous.
We live in California, just so you know. I know every state has their own laws and such.
It's more often about jealousy than actually protecting the kids. Unless it's an extreme case where there was sexual behavior being displayed in FRONT OF the kids, then that's rather creepy. But in our case, we had our own room, we didn't have sex in front of my stepdaughter, and my stepdaughter adored me and I adored her, I treated her as my own. We were doing nothing wrong, his ex is just insanely jealous.
2007-03-13 15:55:36 · answer #3 · answered by Megan V 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When I had my divorce back in 1994, I diddnt have have my boyfriend sleep over when my daughter was in the house. To me it was just bad taste. It was about my morals as a parent.
But,in this case I don't think the judge has a right to restrict who a person sleeps with. Unless the significant other was proven to have problems with drugs,violence,sexcrimes etc..Alot has to do with the custody battle and how it was all brought about in court.
2007-03-13 15:01:52 · answer #4 · answered by Theresa D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know of cases on both sides of the issue. There are exspouses who make poor judgements on who they let have contact with their children.... and have seen court orders restricting their 'overnighters' while they had children present. not in 'general' but only when they had their children with them.
2007-03-13 15:07:04 · answer #5 · answered by livinintheword † 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you divorced? If so you most likely cant stop your ex from having people over. Those decisions are few and far between.
2007-03-13 14:13:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋